The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Soccer Strategy

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure that he wishes to make a statement on creating a soccer strategy for Northern Ireland.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: With World Cup football euphoria all around us, it is perhaps timely that I bring the subject of football in Northern Ireland to the Assembly for debate. Regrettably, Northern Ireland has not been participating in the World Cup finals in Korea and Japan, but I hope that we shall qualify in future.
Members may recall that last May I introduced the future of football for debate in the Assembly. I had initiated a process of developing a football strategy for Northern Ireland in October 2000. Activities involved in that initiative included establishing an advisory panel, which was chaired by Billy Hamilton; a widespread research exercise, which included public meetings; a conference workshop in February 2001, which involved representatives of key stakeholder groups; and action planning to consider recommendations for the way forward.
Last year’s debate allowed me to elaborate on those activities and to provide an interim report on progress by the advisory panel in considering the issues that emerged.
Later, in October 2001, the advisory panel presented me with its final report, which contained more than 150 recommendations for developing the sport. I published the report for consultation, and Members were sent copies. The official closing date for comments was the end of January 2002.
My purpose in bringing this subject to the Assembly is to update Members on the current position; to advise Members on the result of consultation on the advisory panel’s report; to give my assessment of what must happen to overcome the problems facing football; and to put the game in Northern Ireland on a sounder footing for the future.
I wish to convey my sincere appreciation to the organisations and individuals, which include some Assembly representatives, that have shown a keen interest throughout the process and have forwarded their views on the recommendations to my Department.
Before I move on to a more detailed discussion of the recommendations, I wish to explain why I have devoted particular attention to football. I have been asked, "Why football?". Northern Ireland seems to have an innate ability to produce great football players such as Danny Blanchflower and, of course, George Best, who received one of the highest accolades in football when he was named European Footballer of the Year in 1968.
We are the smallest country ever to have played in the World Cup finals on three occasions. We reached the quarter-finals in 1958 and 1982, and the first round in 1986. Norman Whiteside, at 17 years of age, was the youngest player ever to have played in the World Cup finals. That is a proud history, and it is an inspiration for the future.
Around 26,000 people play football in Northern Ireland: people of all ages and of all levels of talent. Those are official figures, but they do not take account of recreational play in the local leisure centre or the number of children who knock a ball about in the school playground, the local pitch or on the street. Those numbers must run into many thousands.
We must not forget the managers, referees, coaches, spectators and administrators who support the game in other ways. Figures show that there are 1,700 qualified coaches and 400 officials, including referees. Vast numbers of volunteers and parents give endless time and commitment to the game, week in and week out.
Football has one of the highest levels of participation of any sport in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, it is an interface game that crosses our society’s divisions.
However, it is a sport in serious difficulties, especially at senior level. It faces many problems, including sub-standard grounds, low match attendances, unruly crowd behaviour and financial problems.
As the Minister responsible for sport, I considered it my responsibility to do something to resolve the difficulties facing one of our most popular sports, and that is why I initiated a process to study all aspects of the game. However, that has not been to the exclusion of other sports, and I am prepared to continue to consider proposals for the betterment of sport and our society in general.
I shall summarise the main recommendations of the advisory panel’s report. The panel felt that the bodies on governance and administration were not as effective as they should be and that they should take steps to change the arrangements, preferably by creating a new governing body, which would combine the functions of the Irish Football Association (IFA) and the Irish Football League. The Irish League should be reorganised into three divisions and should form the top of a pyramid that provides an open, inclusive and progressive league structure from the grass roots to the top.
Clubs should take steps to improve how they manage their affairs and should place emphasis on developing community-based activities. An agreed, coherent youth development policy should be established to provide a strong foundation for the future.
The governing body’s successful football programme for children and adults with learning disabilities should be broadened to include people with physical disabilities and sensory impairment.
The development of girls’ and women’s football should become a mainstream activity of the governing body, as should the management and co-ordination of refereeing. Each of those areas should have dedicated development officers.
A Northern Ireland players’ football association should be established, and supporters should form a football supporters’ association.
Building on work to date, the governing body should lead on the development of a strategy to tackle sectarianism and to improve community relations, and steps should be taken to improve media relations.
The Government should introduce new legislation for Northern Ireland to ensure safety at sports grounds and to control spectator behaviour. The legislation should be accompanied by a funding package to improve grounds and safety management. An assessment should be undertaken to map out present playing facilities and to assess future requirements.
A national stadium that provides a neutral and welcoming environment, and that meets international standards for football should be established. Last, but by no means least, the advisory panel emphasised the importance of treating, and taking forward, its recommendations as an integrated package.
We consulted widely on the advisory panel’s report. The vast majority of those who commented during the consultation period endorsed the recommendations. Having considered the panel’s report and the comments received, I shall give the Assembly my assessment of what needs to happen in football.
The core issue to emerge from the process, and the most sensitive one to resolve, was that relating to the governance and administration of football in Northern Ireland. The responses to the advisory panel’s report indicate broad support for the line taken by the panel, especially for the key recommendation for a single, newly constituted governing body that combines the current functions of the IFA and the Irish Football League. I recognise that both organisations are long established and have served the community well over many years — the IFA since 1880 and the Irish Football League since 1890. They deserve much credit for that.
In more recent times, however, the wider football community has shown an apparent lack of confidence in the present arrangements, as evidenced by research and widespread consultation. We are living in changed times, especially in Northern Ireland, and I support the view that arrangements and practices for managing football must be adapted to meet modern-day needs and standards, and to meet present and future challenges for the game.
Both organisations recognise and accept the need to change. A group of representatives from the two bodies has been working for some months, with the support of a facilitator engaged by my Department, to consider proposals. That is significant, and I warmly welcome the efforts that they have been making.
A widely accepted football administration should be put in place, founded on the principles of equality, fairness, inclusiveness, leadership, accountability and transparency. I attach significant importance to those principles, as does the Assembly. An acceptable administration in charge of the management of the game is key to making progress across all other issues.
I wish to see an organisation that provides effective leadership and clear strategic direction to the game; that is fully acceptable and accountable to all levels of the sport; that is properly and fairly representative of all levels of the sport, with full integration of all levels into policy making and programme activities; that is innovative and imaginative in promoting and delivering the game across all areas of activity such as the disabled, women’s and girls’ soccer, community relations, supporters and refereeing; that owns and is capable of delivering a plan to put football back where it belongs, as a dynamic and growing sport for everyone; and that is transparent and open to scrutiny, both at governance and day-to-day administrative levels.
The IFA and Irish Football League representatives have been considering proposals for change for around six months. It is imperative that those organisations urgently and comprehensively bring their deliberation on the issue to a conclusion and give a clear commitment to implement changes generally consistent with the advisory panel’s recommendations. I have already met their group of representatives, and they are fully aware of my position.
I wish to make it abundantly clear that I consider that the effective management and administration of football is fundamental to making progress on all other fronts. Without a commitment to change, I am unable to envisage how we can move forward on all the other issues. As I mentioned in my summary of the advisory panel’s findings, the panel’s view was that all its recommendations must be considered as an integrated package, and I agree with that view.
An area of concern that emerged from consultation on the advisory panel’s report was that it was perceived by some to place too much emphasis on senior clubs without sufficiently addressing the needs of junior or intermediate football, or recognising the voluntary contributions devoted by many people week after week.
There is no doubt that acute problems exist at senior club level. I have already mentioned some of them, and Members will be familiar with the issues. Improvements in the senior game will have a positive impact on all other levels, from grass roots to international. It is a poignant reminder that Northern Ireland has not qualified for a World Cup tournament since 1986. It would be nice to think that that could be turned around over the next decade. That is achievable if we provide a pathway up from the grass-roots level for the most talented players.
However, the soccer strategy is not all about providing for the most talented players. It is about providing the best possible opportunity for the community to have access to and to participate in the game at all levels — playing, refereeing, watching, making a voluntary contribution, et cetera. At the outset of the initiative, I made it clear that there would be a collective process to understand and address the problems facing the game. The recommendations produced by the panel address more than senior football, and an important one is that there should be a pyramid system enabling progression from the grass roots to senior football. That has my support, but junior and intermediate clubs should want to aspire to the standards of senior clubs. Is that happening now?
Other recommendations that would have an impact on the non-senior game relate to youth development, women’s and girls’ football, refereeing, playing facilities and the governance and administration of the game. I expect any long-term development plan for football to address all levels of the game, and I do not envisage any additional resources being for senior football only. They would also have to provide for development outside the senior game, and location must also be taken into account to ensure opportunities for widespread access and participation.
The advisory panel’s view is that we should have a national stadium to meet international standards for football and that such a stadium must have a neutral and welcoming environment for everyone. I concur. However, the priority is to get the football structure right to ensure that football’s potential as a participation and spectator sport is realised before we engage in such a capital undertaking. Therefore, my first concern is to ensure a sound basis for the sport in Northern Ireland rather than prestigious projects. We need a football ground of international standard, and that is why the governing body must produce detailed options for meeting that need.
The football authorities must settle the long-term structure of the Irish League without delay. I have already said that I support a pyramid structure with the Irish League at the top. The structure must be clearly defined, with clearly established criteria for promotion and relegation.
Football clubs, especially the senior ones, must manage their affairs more effectively and efficiently, and there should be training to help them. The key to the future of all clubs, regardless of the level that they play at, is community involvement. That should be the priority for clubs. There is much scope for them to bond better with their communities and to establish themselves as active and vibrant hubs of activity through linking up and working with local clubs and teams. Those should include women’s and girls’ teams; youth clubs; primary, secondary and special schools; disabled groups; ethnic minority groups; community groups; supporters; and participants in other sports. Clubs must be imaginative and proactive in establishing those links — the bigger clubs or consortia could play a leading role in developing community involvement, and I am prepared to look at ways of helping football further down that route.
I endorse the widespread view that youth development in football is a crucial building block for the future of the game. That is why I have already invested initial funding in that. Urgent steps are needed to establish a common youth development policy, based on the advisory panel’s recommendations, which has the agreement and commitment of all interested groups, including the Northern Ireland Women’s Football Association, the Northern Ireland Boys’ Football Association and the Northern Ireland Schools’ Football Association, among others. Northern Ireland should have a youth academy, and that should be developed as part of the Sports Institute Northern Ireland (SINI).
Northern Ireland should have similar legislation to the mainland that makes provision for improved safety at major sports grounds and for controlling spectator behaviour. I am willing to introduce proposals for such legislation that would be applicable to football, rugby and Gaelic grounds. New safety legislation would have significant implications for many sports grounds in that improvement work would need to be carried out in order to comply with the new safety requirements. That would require major investment, and an assessment has identified that expenditure in the region of £30 million would be necessary over eight to 10 years. Any funding support to clubs for improved facilities and safety management should be tied into conditions relating to wider measures for improving the game, such as youth development, community development, the development of women’s and girls’ sides of the sport, et cetera. Clubs would be expected to make a financial contribution to ground improvements.
Adequate playing facilities are essential, especially for the football grass roots, to meet the needs of the hundreds of teams and players that turn out each week. We need to examine the implications of introducing a pyramid system whereby clubs that aim to progress would have to fulfil certain criteria on standards. The introduction of mini soccer for primary school-age children would have implications for facilities for clubs, district councils and, in particular, schools. Special requirements for women and girls would have to be allowed for. The Sports Council for Northern Ireland should be asked to lead, in consultation with key users and providers, in mapping out existing provision, assessing future needs and examining ways of meeting those needs.
I fully agree with the advisory panel’s recommendations on the future development for disability, women’s football and refereeing. I fully acknowledge the excellent and positive work carried out by the IFA, but there is scope for the governing body to play a more active and leading role in those areas. The governing body and other providers should be mindful of the need to promote equality of opportunity for all. That includes the need to take account of ethnic minorities, and possibly other groups, in our society. I have already referred to the scope for clubs to engage with ethnic minority groups to establish greater links with their communities.
Sport is a vehicle for building better community relations. Football, as an interface sport, is particularly suitable, and I support the advisory panel’s recommendations on this subject.
Local football recognises the need for a positive image for the game. The IFA and the Irish League have taken positive steps towards implementing the panel’s recommendations for improving media relations. I especially welcome the Irish League’s work on producing a communications code of practice.
Last year, I informed the Assembly that steps were being taken by football players to re-establish the Players’ Football Association. However, I understand that the organisation has not materialised in spite of initial enthusiasm. That is disappointing, but perhaps players will revisit the idea at some time in the future when there is an improved football environment overall.
I am not aware of any steps by football supporters to form an umbrella body in Northern Ireland similar to the Football Supporters’ Association in England. Again, that is a matter for the supporters themselves to address, but I noted with interest the advisory panel’s comments that the Football Supporters’ Association has become an effective and respected lobby group that is consulted regularly on a range of issues. Perhaps that is a step further down the line.
Sunday football has proved to be an emotive issue, and it has attracted many letters from members of the public who strongly object to the idea. I fully understand and respect that view. In comparison, the majority of the responses received from those who have a more direct interest in football agreed that the rules should be changed to provide the option to play on a Sunday, and I fully appreciate that also. The key to this is choice. Both views are valid and sincerely held. It is not for me to impose a solution. It must be decided at individual and community levels, and that is a matter for the football organisations.
How should we move forward from here? I have explained the rationale behind my initiative to develop a football strategy. However, it is important to remember that sports governing bodies are, in general, voluntary organisations established to co-ordinate, control and develop all aspects of a particular sport. I recognise and respect that position and, in the case of football, I have striven to work and co-operate with the IFA to encourage change.
I have outlined the bones of the way ahead for football, and we now need to put flesh on those bones in the form of a detailed development plan. In recognition of the role of the governing body, it is primarily a matter for the IFA to take the lead in drawing up a development plan, in close association with the Sports Council and in consultation with other relevant parties.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr J Wilson] in the Chair)
It is essential that the long-term development plan include the following: the fundamental principles of equality, fairness, inclusiveness, accountability, leadership and transparency — to which I attach significant importance; clear objectives, actions and targets, and demonstrations of how they are linked to the advisory panel’s recommendations; resource requirements linked to a time frame; and a clear case supporting the need for such resources, citing the additional benefits that they would bring for football and for the wider community.
The development plan should demonstrate how assistance for football would help the Government meet their wider aims and objectives. Through the strategy process we have assembled substantial information, recommendations and views to enable work on such a plan to begin. I am prepared to present a paper to the Northern Ireland Executive seeking the necessary resources to support action to restore the game of football to its position as a successful sport that serves both communities.
However, as Colleagues will be aware, there can be no guarantee that additional resources from the public purse will be forthcoming, given the fact that resources are scarce and that there is pressure from other sports and sectors under my responsibility, let alone from other Departments. The case for football must, therefore, be comprehensive and robust. If I am to bid for resources, I need a development plan to be presented to me urgently. There must be an immediate indication from the IFA that it agrees to move forward on that basis.
From 2000 to 2002, my Department made available £2·5 million, which, together with funding from the National Lottery and the Football Foundation, has enabled the Sports Council to assist a programme of safety improvement works at major sports grounds. By that, I mean football, Gaelic and rugby grounds. Under that scheme, football has benefited to date to the tune of £1·96 million, of which £1·58 million has gone directly towards improvement works at 21 grounds.
Last December, I announced that there would be further funding of £1 million to support the continuation of that programme in 2002-03, and I expect that football will continue to be a major beneficiary. That is the first significant funding made available for safety work at sports grounds in Northern Ireland, and it was possible only as a direct consequence of a devolved Government with a Minister responsible for local sports matters. As commendable and welcome as that has been, considerably more funding is required if we are to bring major sports grounds up to acceptable standards for players and spectators. As I have said, some £30 million would be required, and it is estimated that a significant portion of that would be required for football grounds.
I was also pleased to announce last December that I would make £1·6 million available over three years until 2003-04 to address some of the matters that were identified in the advisory panel’s report. That money is being invested in youth development — specifically, in the programme for football development centres. Each of those will deliver three key strands of youth development: mini soccer targeted at primary school children at Key Stage 2; community football for 12- to 16-year-olds that involves innovative community-based activities to broaden interest in the game; and centres of excellence that will provide elite coaching for the most talented players in those age groups. Opportunities at those centres must be open to both boys and girls and to persons with a disability.
Applications from clubs, or from a combination of clubs, for assistance under the programme were invited by public advertisement on 17 and 18 June. Awards will be determined on the basis of the ability of clubs, or a combination of clubs, to meet the necessary criteria. I look forward to seeing the first of these football development centres being established over the next few months. The Department will, of course, monitor their effectiveness and success.
I have already been successful in providing much needed finance to improve football. However, extra funding for safety improvements runs out in March 2003, and that for the youth development programme runs out in March 2004. Clearly, if all the advisory panel’s recommendations are to be accepted and taken forward in their entirety, considerably more investment will be required. By initiating the strategy and by having already brought substantial funding to the table, I believe that I have demonstrated good faith in the game of football and a commitment to helping it out of its difficulties.
Obviously, much more must be done to improve football in Northern Ireland. A huge amount of time and effort has already been devoted to bringing the process to this stage. I am satisfied that the recommendations in the advisory panel’s report, taken in their totality, have the support of wider football interests and provide a sound basis for developing the game. The report must now be translated into an agreed development plan for action, and I look to the governing body to produce that, with support from the Sports Council.
If I am to lodge a package of costed proposals with the Executive, which, I emphasise, must be done in 2002, the leadership of football must live up to its responsibilities to the football community and provide a clear, unambiguous commitment to sign up to a package of measures that are consistent with the recommendations in the advisory panel’s report. In particular, it must agree to implement changes in the structure of governance and administration of football, and lead in drawing together a long-term plan for the future of football in Northern Ireland. Without such a commitment I have no basis on which to continue to make a special case for football.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I commend the Minister on his full and frank statement on the advisory panel’s report on the future of soccer. Like the Minister, the Committee strongly supports the advisory panel’s recommendations. It also agrees that they should be developed as a complete package. However, public funding for sport, as for everything else, is limited. There are many calls on scarce resources.
The Minister said that soccer has done exceptionally well compared to other sports in the past few years. Those who are involved in other sports might justifiably ask why the leadership of football has been so slow to respond to the interest shown in its difficulties, why it has apparently failed to acknowledge the effort that has been invested in drawing up the recommendations for its future and why it seems not to have recognised that the public funding that it has received to date begs some response. When the Minister talks about an immediate response, does he mean that a timetable has been set for that response? Has the Minister set a deadline, and if not, why not?
Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise to the Minister, as I will be unable to stay for the rest of the comments. I have another appointment.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I am not in the business of setting deadlines. The Assembly, the Executive and I are here to support football and the bodies concerned with developing the game. We want to create a successful and vibrant sport that will enable us to compete at the highest level on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to ensure participation and access at all levels. Football has had support, but much more needs to be done.
The Hamilton Report was published on 30 October 2001. The IFA and the Irish Football League have had almost nine months to respond to it. People are asking why those bodies have not responded by now. Nine months is sufficient time to respond. To mitigate that criticism somewhat, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is facilitating a process between the IFA and the Irish Football League to arrive at an agreed position to allow them to move forward. That process has been ongoing for some months.
I do not impose deadlines, but the process itself, almost by definition, imposes its own. Football is, to an extent, running out of time as regards the Hamilton Report. The footballing bodies would be doing a great disservice to the football family and themselves if they did not respond positively and urgently to that report.

Mr Ivan Davis: I declare an interest, as I am a member of a football club that has just gained promotion. I congratulate the Minister on his statement and on establishing the advisory panel, which was representative of all football interests. We must recognise the panel’s commitment to the soccer strategy.
Several important matters and recommendations were noted in the report. I agree especially with the Minister that there has to be effective management and administration of the game in Northern Ireland. Indeed, those involved in administrating football here must make a genuine commitment to change. The nettle must be grasped to stop the sport from continuing to wither.
Any recommendations for the good of the game must be implemented as quickly as possible, as football is under tremendous pressure. Everyone involved in football at all levels in the Province is to be congratulated for his contribution to the sport over many years. However, I am sure that the Minister will agree that something must be done as quickly as possible.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I wholly concur with Mr Davis’s remarks. It is nine months since the publication of the Hamilton Report. That should have been adequate time in which to make a definitive response. Work is ongoing in the background between the two governing bodies, the IFA and the Irish Football League. However, there is dissatisfaction in the football family that things have not moved faster. It seems that football is facing severe challenges.
Northern Ireland last competed at the highest level in 1986, and participation at that level is the manifestation of a healthy game. If we want that high-level standard to be reached, we need to consider the grass roots. Football is the people’s game. It must be accessible, and participated in, by the people. Improving standards from the youth level upwards is the way to reach the highest level.
There is much to be done. The Hamilton Report, with its 150 recommendations, is football’s voice, not mine. That view of football is the product of 12 months’ exhaustive work by the panel. It listened carefully to the views of the football family, and its recommendations and views are the voice of the constituency and must be paramount.

Mr David Hilditch: I declare an interest. It is unfortunate that we are limited to questions on the Minister’s statement and cannot debate it. I welcome broadly the statement and look forward to the implementation of the recommendations, particularly the football development centres, which, it is hoped, will be up and running by August 2002.
Where does the blame for the disappointment lie? At various levels of administration there is a hunger to progress, but there is a blockage in the system. Perhaps the Minister could specify where the blockage occurs.
Is the Minister aware that, at its meeting on Thursday 27 June, the Irish Football League management committee will examine next year’s league structures? Has any guidance been given on that, through consultation with that committee, given that leagues of 12 teams and eight teams present problems? The premier league would be lucky to complete the season.
As a result of the advisory panel’s report, people became involved to save local clubs, some of which were hundreds of thousands of pounds in debt. Is it likely that a stupid and rash decision by the Irish Football League management committee would cut those clubs adrift and remove their senior status, given that they are perhaps less than halfway through a five-year business plan?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I thank Mr Hilditch for his constant interest and his broad welcome. The implementation plan is not a matter for me but for the IFA, the governing body of football. We seek the IFA’s agreement to embrace the recommendations and to produce a plan to demonstrate how those will be implemented.
It is not helpful to apportion blame at this time. The Hamilton Report contained many changes and recommendations. They will take time to assimilate, but a facilitation process is under way.
Mr Hilditch mentioned the football community’s disappointment, and I share some of his frustration. Hamilton recommended a pyramid of three leagues, each with 14 teams. Again, that is a matter for the Irish Football League. It is not for me to impose the number of leagues or the number of teams in them. However, we look to the Irish Football League to reflect the Hamilton recommendations, which were taken as a package.
No guidance was given by my Department, other than the support given to football. That has been achieved by creating a strategy for football in accordance with the Hamilton Report. It is a matter for the Irish Football League; however, bearing in mind that the recommendations resulted from consultation with the football constituency as a whole, it would be a mistake not to consider them seriously.

Mr Norman Boyd: I too declare an interest. I am a member of Linfield Football Club and hold a season ticket. I take particular interest in the future of Windsor Park.
The Minister referred to proposals for a national stadium. However, Members have been told that resources are scarce for all Irish League grounds, not just Windsor Park. Would the scarce resources not be better spent on bringing Windsor Park up to international standard and improving other Irish League grounds? Does the Minister, in his reference to neutrality at the stadium, mean that the Union flag would not fly and the national anthem would not be sung at international matches?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I have attempted to make clear my position on having a national stadium at several Question Times, but I will do so again for the benefit of Mr Boyd, who may have missed my answers. Apart from land and running costs, more than £60 million is needed to build a national stadium to international standard. If I had £60 million, I would not spend it on such a prestigious capital project; I would spend it on developing the game. There are tangible examples of such development, which include the allocation of £1·6 million to the youth development programme. Money should be spent on raising the standard of the game. Most people in football aspire to a prestigious national stadium, but such a project is feasible only at a particular time, and now is not that time.
Mr Boyd referred to the scarcity of resources. I compete with other Ministers for scarce resources, so the chance of winning more than £60 million to build a football ground is remote. Moreover, football has more fundamental needs than a prestigious new stadium, though that may come in time. Windsor Park and other football grounds need capital expenditure, as do Gaelic and rugby grounds, for which there are investment plans. The Department’s health and safety scheme will continue to benefit those sports.
Mr Boyd questioned my reference to the neutrality of the national stadium. I will not define what is meant by that; Mr Boyd can do that for himself. A national stadium should be a place where everyone feels comfortable and welcome. Questions have been asked about the neutrality of Windsor Park. The authorities there take that seriously, and I look forward to hearing their proposals.
Windsor Park does not meet international standards, and if we want future international games there, money must be found and practical help given to enable the Irish Football Association to improve the ground to the minimum standard.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: The report comes at an appropriate time, and I welcome it. I am in favour of community and voluntary involvement, of which the Foyle Cup in the north-west is a good example. It is imperative that areas that have been neglected be high on the agenda. Omagh Town is the only Irish League team west of the Bann. Although my home town has several excellent football teams, it has never had senior representation in either the B division league or the Premier League. I welcome the commitment to community involvement and, especially, the safety legislation. Will the Minister ensure that areas such as Strabane are given top priority?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I thank Mr McMenamin for his broad support. There are ways to deal with areas of neglect. For example, the Executive and the Programme for Government have several overarching principles, especially for targeting social need, rural proofing and so forth, and those should help. I am talking primarily about football. As for the progress of Mr McMenamin’s local club, one of the key recommendations was a pyramid league system that would allow teams to progress upwards if their standards and skills matched.
As I have already said, community involvement is the key to that. There is a huge constituency for football; nearly everybody has played football at one time or another, whether recreationally, formally at school or on other teams. Who can forget the night when Northern Ireland beat Spain in 1982? We remember those highlights. There is a strong groundswell of support for football. However, football does not connect at every level of the community, so its future must be based on building those connections. Some clubs are making efforts on that front, but others must work harder. Football clubs collectively, like all of us, must work harder. Community involvement is needed to improve standards at every level of the game.

Dr Ian Adamson: I too should like to congratulate the Minister and his advisory panel on the report. Will he elaborate on how it fits with the Sports Council for Northern Ireland’s ‘Strategy for the Development of Sport in Northern Ireland 1997-2005’, written by President Mary McAleese, among others, when she was a professor at the Queen’s University of Belfast?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I thank Dr Adamson for his support for the strategy and our progress with it.
The Sports Council is responsible for developing sport in Northern Ireland and is the prime funding body through which the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure directs it resources. Its policy, business plan and objectives have been agreed, and they fit in well with the objectives of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, the Executive and the Assembly. The Sports Council will be reviewed soon, and that will be informed by developments since that strategy was published. I was unaware that Mary McAleese was involved with the Sports Council in those days; there is no limit to some people’s talents.
The Sports Council’s budget was cut last year from £2·8 million to £2·3 million. Its budget is decreasing, and so is participation in sport in Northern Ireland. There is a direct relationship between the two. The latest survey by Queen’s University demonstrates that those with an active lifestyle cost the Health Service 30% less than inactive people do. Therefore, if we want to save money in the Health Service in the long term we must involve people in an active, healthy lifestyle. The prime body for involving people in those activities is the Sports Council.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I also welcome broadly the report. I am happy that the Minister mentioned players such as Danny Blanchflower and George Best, but I remind him that today in Magherafelt a plaque is being unveiled to a man who may be among the greats of Irish football: Peter Doherty. He is also worthy of mention, as are Jackie Vernon or Mickey Hamill, for example. Jackie Vernon was probably one of the best centre backs who ever played for Ireland.
If there is to be a soccer strategy, what about strategies for hockey, cricket, rugby and boxing? Will those sectors feel marginalised because of the concentration on soccer?
The first team to beat England on English soil was an all-Ireland soccer team that won 2-1 at Goodison Park in 1948. The English made the excuse that, because the match was not played at Wembley, it did not count. We had to wait until Hungary beat England 6-3 before it counted.
Soccer is an interface sport with an unhappy history. Malcolm Brodie said recently that there was no future for a Northern Ireland soccer team in international football. Will the Minister examine the possibility of creating an all-Ireland soccer team, just as there are all-Ireland rugby, hockey and boxing teams?
Windsor Park was mentioned as a possible venue for a national stadium, but it would not qualify as a neutral or welcome environment. Given that so many sports are played on an all-Ireland basis, might there not be some merit in discussing with Bertie Ahern the idea of a superbowl rather than a "Bertie Bowl" or even a "McGimpsey Bowl"?

Ms Sue Ramsey: You would need to get the begging bowl out.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I referred to Danny Blanchflower and George Best. George is far and away our most famous footballer and is arguably, as Pelé has said, the greatest footballer ever. John Kelly mentioned Peter Doherty and Mickey Hamill, and he reiterated my point that we have a wide range of players, past and present. The Northern Ireland manager, Sammy McIlroy, played for Northern Ireland in the World Cup tournaments in Spain and Mexico. People sometimes forget that the manager of Celtic, Martin O’Neill, was a hugely successful player who has a couple of European Cup medals to his credit. We have a proud football heritage.
With regard to other sports feeling marginalised because a soccer strategy is being adopted, the fact is that football is the people’s game, and it is an interface game. It is played by all sections of the community. As far as good governance is concerned, there is no contradiction in helping footballers and supporting football. Representatives for hockey and other sports have never complained of being marginalised.
John Kelly mentioned the 1948 all-Ireland soccer team, and the idea for another such team has been mooted. I have not read Malcolm Brodie’s comment that Northern Ireland soccer has no future; however, during the 1958, 1982 and 1986 World Cup competitions, Northern Ireland was the smallest country ever to compete. We have a proud list of players who, over the years, have played key roles in the game at local, national and international level.
The IFA is football’s governing body in Northern Ireland, and it is the fourth-oldest governing body in the world. It was established when football was an all-Ireland sport and there was one national team — Ireland. In 1921, the Irish Free State broke away from the United Kingdom, and Republicans forced partition on Ireland and refused to play all-Ireland football. The Irish Free State insisted on setting up its own association, the Football Association of Ireland (FAI). For many years, Northern Ireland continued to play under the name "Ireland", and the Ireland team was Northern Ireland until the mid-1950s. After repeated complaints from the Southern authorities, it was agreed that the name "Ireland" would be dropped, and the teams started to call themselves "Northern Ireland" and the "Republic of Ireland".
That is the history.
As regards the future, no one seems to be pushing for an all-Ireland team in a constructive way. My role as Minister with responsibility for sport is to support Sammy McIlroy and the Northern Ireland team. That is the team that I cheer for and that I went to see regularly at Windsor Park. I assure the Member that the crowds who went to see the team play in 1982 and 1986 were by no means drawn from one section of the community.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I thank the Minister for his report, which contains many noble aspirations. I wish him every success with it.
However, we are talking about getting the community to go to football matches and encouraging families to attend. There is nothing in the report that deals with the reasons why people stay away from football matches. The Minister must be living with his head in the sand. Although improvements have been made, not nearly enough has been done to address the sectarianism and tribalism that keeps people away. The Minister seems to dodge the question every time.
Was consideration given to introducing legislation similar to the Football (Offences) Act 1991 to Northern Ireland? Does the Minister recognise that sectarian, racist and tribal chanting continues to be a serious problem on Northern Ireland’s football terraces? If so, what plans does he have to tackle the problem —[Interruption].
I hear a great deal of noise from one corner of the House. It would be good manners if those Members were to allow me the opportunity to speak and to let the Minister hear what I have to say. The Minister mentioned —

Mr Jim Wilson: As was the case during two earlier contributions, I am having difficulty spotting the Member’s question. The Minister is also having some difficulty in that regard. Will the Member ask his question.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Yes. If the Member could have peace from interruptions —

Mr Jim Wilson: I shall determine the business in the Chamber, Mr McCarthy. Please ask your question.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: What consideration has the Minister given to introducing legislation similar to that across the water? He mentioned in his statement that he wishes to introduce safety legislation to Northern Ireland. I contend that sectarian chanting at football matches is keeping the community away from the grounds.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I am at a loss at Mr McCarthy’s paradoxical position. He first congratulated and supported me; then he told me that I live with my head in the sand.
With regard to barriers to attendance, the Member must consider the overall interest in football here. For example, if the Member were to attend the Milk Cup in Coleraine in July, he would see a packed ground. He would see not only fathers, but whole families. He would see mums with their daughters, their sons and their husbands. Watching the Milk Cup at Coleraine Showgrounds is a nice way to spend a summer’s evening in the sun. The Milk Cup is an example of a local football tournament that has grown into an international event, attracting teams from all over the world.
Sadly, sectarianism is a product of Northern Ireland society. We all deplore it, and we do what we can to eradicate it. However, we cannot expect football alone to solve our society’s problems. Society must solve its problems and not pass the buck to football.
I shall legislate as necessary. I am prepared to consider legislation, and I have made that commitment repeatedly in response to questions on the issue.
Legislation will require a resource commitment. We must have some responsibility for legislating, and, consequently, we must have some responsibility for those resources as well.
Football is an interface sport; it is our only major sport that is genuinely so. An interface sport is one that is played by all sections of our community. That is why it is so important and why we are making such efforts to give football the support that the Hamilton recommendations call for.

Mr Jim Shannon: I welcome the Minister’s recommendations, but I am disappointed that the IFA seems to have failed to grasp the need for change at its level. Football is the national sport of Northern Ireland, and it brings together all sections of the community.
I was at both the Spain 1982 and Mexico 1986 World Cups. In those days I was not married; I could go wherever I wanted, but it is slightly different now. Moreover, the team qualified then, which was the reason for going. Those were heady days for Northern Ireland, and the team played exceptionally well — they played the shirts off their backs. Is it a coincidence that our football’s downward trend seemed to start when the league developed another layer of administration? The IFA may have produced legislators, but countries such as Senegal, Turkey, South Korea, Japan and the USA, who are participating in the World Cup, have all produced footballers and teams capable of going to the World Cup finals. The focus must be on the pitch, not on the office.
What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that top officials, instead of striding the world football stage in their best — and well-travelled — suits are working to lift football at all levels? The heady days of 1982 and 1986 can and will return. Many are pursuing changes at all levels, and the IFA must get its hands dirty as well. It must make changes from the bottom up and from the top down. What assistance will be available for junior clubs that aspire to do better, and to lift themselves from the junior level and upgrade their grounds? Examples of those clubs are Killyleagh YC, Comber Rec and Ards Rangers — those are three local teams that are striving to do better.
What can the Minister tell us about Friday matches? I understand that the decision will not be left to the home team, but must be with the agreement of both teams. Changing matches to Friday may be advantageous to football in the Province. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your graciousness.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I cannot comment on a coincidence between league officials’ actions and a downward trend in football. There clearly is a downward trend that we must reverse. That is the reason for the strategy and for the Hamilton Report. The strategy, supported by the Assembly, is my proposal. We wish the football authorities to adopt the Hamilton recommendations, both to show that they are prepared to make the necessary changes and to give us an implementation plan that we can all get behind. That is the strategy. It is for the governing bodies of football to make those decisions — it is not for me to impose them. If they make those changes I can argue in their favour. It is difficult for me to argue for resources for them without such commitment. Those are not my changes or Billy Hamilton’s recommendations; those are the recommendations of the entire football family, which have been dealt with by the Hamilton panel.
One proposal is for a pyramid structure that would allow junior clubs to develop; the Member is correct in referring to Senegal and others. A key issue about which I have spoken is that community involvement and youth development should be from the ground up. That is why we have found funding for youth development, and one way of encouraging youth development is through the clubs. Any of the senior and intermediate clubs, or a consortium of clubs, can avail themselves of grant aid. They can employ a youth development officer to develop the youth in their area, using the three strands: mini soccer; community football for 12- to 16-year-olds; and coaching for talented players.
The Hamilton panel approves the support of elite athletes in football. A key mechanism for doing that will be Sports Institute Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK-wide Sports Institute network. That is going ahead at Jordanstown. I hope that athletes will attend the institute this October. Thus far, rugby, athletics, hockey and Gaelic bodies have signed up, and each sport will have a performance director. To date, football has not availed itself of that opportunity. I implore the IFA to take that opportunity. We shall not only provide football with a performance director, it will also be able to obtain the support of the infrastructure that will be available in Jordanstown. Support services relating to strength, stamina, sport and medicine, which are common to all athletes, will be provided. That is another tangible measure that the IFA can take. Football was not included in tranche one. Tranche two is now available, and two more sports will be admitted. Competition is strong, but I implore the IFA to get involved because it is one of the key ways to take the game forward.

Mr Sam Foster: I too am a staunch soccer supporter. I congratulate the Minister for his welcome presentation, and I congratulate the task force on its fine work.
Soccer is a game that all can play without any hindrance, and that is very worthwhile. The debate is appropriate in these World Cup days. Reference has been made to players such as George Best, Peter Doherty, Danny Blanchflower and Jackie Vernon. Windsor Park has also been referred to. Although the Minister mentioned the establishment of a new national stadium, what will happen to Windsor Park? That ground has served the country very well for a long time. Sadly, although people talk about Windsor Park, not many people go there now. I remember standing in Windsor Park when there were about 48,000 people at international matches.
Reference was also made to an all-Ireland team. People from across the island played together in the days that I have just mentioned, and we were often beaten by England and Scotland by six or seven goals to one. Will the Minister think again about making improvements to Windsor Park?
The Minister also said that junior football is the lifeblood of the game in the Province. People such as myself, and those in the Fermanagh and Western Association, have been proud that the Irish Junior Cup final has been won for the past three years by Fermanagh teams — Irvinestown Wanderers, Lisnaskea Rovers and the north Fermanagh club, Kesh.

Mr Jim Wilson: I know by the way that the Member is looking at me that he knows that he is not obeying the code. Is he coming to a question?

Mr Sam Foster: I am just making a few points. [Interruption].

Mr Jim Wilson: Order. I have been quite relaxed about this, but there is point beyond which I cannot be stretched. This is not an opportunity to make a few points; it is an opportunity to ask questions.

Mr Sam Foster: Will the Minister further confirm that he will not forget the junior football clubs, because they are the lifeblood of the Province? Will he think again about Windsor Park?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: It is not a question of whether I shall think again about Windsor Park.
I have already outlined what I see as the proper and sensible way forward. I do not see us having the funding for a major prestigious capital project such as a new international stadium. If we did have the amount of money required, I am not sure that that would be the best way to use it.
Football needs to be developed at the grass roots — at community and youth level. As far as the Northern Ireland international team is concerned, Windsor Park needs some investment to raise it to an acceptable international standard. The IFA must come and tell me what it sees as the way forward and what its options are. It should not wait for me to make suggestions or impose a course of action. I shall not be imposing anything. It is for the IFA to come forward with its proposals to ensure that it has a ground of acceptable international standards for the international team to play on.
In relation to the junior clubs, I have said that we need to move forward at all levels. The strategy is not simply about the senior game; it is about the game at every level, and junior clubs play a vital role.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I shall stick rigidly to your request to ask questions, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I welcome sections of the report and the reference that the Minister made to the 26,000 individuals who play football. That shows the level of interest in the national game. In his earlier comments, he said that he considered that any funding support to clubs for improved facilities and safety management should be tied into conditions relating to wider measures, such as youth development, community involvement, the development of the women’s and girls’ side of the sport, et cetera. Does the Minister believe that a good way to implement and promote that would be to fund clubs that already carry out those functions and that already provide those facilities? That would provide a twofold impetus. It would support the clubs that are already doing so, and it would provide an impetus for other clubs that are not doing so to get involved in community development and women’s and girls’ sport. Many clubs in the north-west are already doing that, as are the organisers of the Milk Cup — a competition that was mentioned by the Minister.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I do not broadly disagree with the sentiments expressed by Mr Campbell. Some clubs are doing extremely important work and taking their game forward. We look to support those clubs. Some other clubs are lagging behind, and certain areas of the game need development and support. We need to look at how we can support those clubs.
We shall not turn our backs on health and safety. We shall ensure that spectators are safe when they go to the grounds, that objects will not fall on them and that they will not trip over objects. Health and safety is a key requirement for all citizens, and they are entitled to that kind of support from the Government. A raft of measures is involved, and we shall try to give levels of support to those measures.
We need to see something in return as well. We are involved in a programme, a policy and a process that cannot be a one-way street. I want the soccer governing body to say that it supports the recommendations, and I want to see its implementation plan. I shall then look at resource implications and make the arguments for them at that point.

Mr Joe Byrne: I too welcome the Minister’s efforts to try to tackle the sorry state of soccer in Northern Ireland. How committed are the football authorities to developing a meaningful, sincere and practical approach to the development of youth football? I would suggest that the lack of youth football competitions is probably one of the main reasons why the game is in such a sorry state. I ask the Minister in his deliberations with the football authorities to impress on them their obligation to try to help and promote youth football.
There were two other famous football players who were not mentioned: Norman Whiteside, who was a great product of a youth policy in Belfast, and Pat Jennings, who was perhaps the greatest goalkeeper ever.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I did mention Norman Whiteside, who, at 17 years of age, was the youngest player from any country to play in the World Cup finals. I agree that Pat Jennings was one of the greatest goalkeepers ever. As far as the young are concerned, we have committed £1·6 million to youth development, and we are looking at three areas of need: mini soccer, elite coaching and community football for 12- to 16-year-olds. That will reinforce what is already going on. Some senior clubs are doing important work in developing youth football. We wish to reinforce that to support them and to make it available to clubs at all levels, not just at senior level.

Housing Support Services Bill: First Stage

Mr Nigel Dodds: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 23/01] to confer on the Northern Ireland Housing Executive functions with respect to housing support services, and to amend provision about housing benefit.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Jim Wilson: The Bill will be put on the list of future pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Housing Bill: First Stage

Mr Nigel Dodds: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 24/01] to make provision about the conduct of tenants of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and registered housing associations, grants and other assistance for housing purposes and action in relation to unfit housing; to amend the Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 and the Housing (Northern Ireland) Orders 1981 to 1992; and for connected purposes.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Jim Wilson: The Bill will be put on the list of future pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Strategic Planning Bill: Second Stage

Mr Peter Robinson: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Strategic Planning Bill (NIA 17/01) be agreed.
The main purpose of the Strategic Planning Bill is to amend the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 and to assist the Department of the Environment and the Department for Social Development in carrying out their statutory functions in respect of implementing the regional development strategy.
As Members will be aware, strategic planning is my Department’s responsibility, while operational planning, including the preparation of development plans and policy, are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. The Bill deals with the relationship between the regional development strategy, which was agreed by the Assembly on 17 September 2001, and development plans.
Before dealing with its main provisions, I shall briefly explain the need for the Bill. The Strategic Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 provided the legal context for the preparation of the regional development strategy. It also amended the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 by introducing an obligation to ensure that future planning policies, development plans and development schemes are "consistent with" the strategy. Several concerns were expressed about the "consistent with" requirement before the formulation of the regional development strategy.
First, there was a concern about three development plans being introduced by the Department of the Environment that were well in advance of the regional development strategy. The Bill deals with that difficulty by way of a transitional arrangement for those three plans.
Secondly, the Department of the Environment expressed concern that the requirement could produce a potential conflict of tension in respect of its duty to secure the orderly development of land, an obligation placed on it by the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, and the requirement to ensure consistency with the regional development strategy.
Thirdly, there was a concern that the requirement might adversely affect the Department of the Environment’s ability to respond to changing circumstances unforeseen in the regional development strategy. Legal opinion was sought on those concerns about the "consistent with" requirement, and on receipt of advice from senior counsel it was agreed that the alternative wording "in general conformity with" provided the flexibility sought by the Department of the Environment while maintaining the clear authority of the regional development strategy.
The relatively short Bill is in three parts and has three main clauses. The first clause amends the requirement that development plans must be "consistent with" the regional development strategy to one of being "in general conformity with". I have agreed with the Minister of the Environment that the concerns raised by his Department can be averted by that change in wording.
The second clause makes provision for a statement of conformity procedure in the statutory planning process. I regard that as a very important provision in the Bill. It will reaffirm the primacy of the regional development strategy since all future development plans must be "in general conformity with" it. The importance of the overarching authority of the strategy was raised by the Committee for Regional Development on several occasions. It was concerned that the regional development strategy should have teeth for the development plan process. The new statement of conformity procedure will provide a robust policing role to enable the Department for Regional Development to assess whether a development plan is in general conformity with the strategy.
I see the statement procedure as part of four stages of plan preparation. The first stage is before the publication of the draft plan, when the Department for Regional Development will be required to issue a first statement that offers its opinion on the conformity or otherwise of the draft plan. By working closely with the Department of the Environment, officials from the Department for Regional Development will do everything possible to ensure that plans do conform with the regional development strategy. However, if the Department for Regional Development is of the opinion that a draft plan does not conform, a statement of non-conformity will be issued that will specify how the draft plan is not in general conformity with the regional development strategy.
A statement of non-conformity will be treated as an objection to the draft plan. It is not in anyone’s interest that that should happen, and officials will work closely with the Department of the Environment as plans are prepared to avoid such an event.
The second stage is the issue of a report by the Planning Appeals Commission after a public inquiry into the draft plan. The issue of conformity will be considered at the public inquiry. The subsequent Planning Appeals Commission report will deal with any objections that may alter the relationship between the plan and the regional development strategy.
The third stage will come when a draft adoption statement is prepared by the Department of the Environment. In preparing that draft statement, the Department of the Environment must take account of the Planning Appeals Commission’s report, which will include recommendations made in the light of all submissions at the inquiry, including those on the conformity of plans with the regional development strategy. At that stage, the Department for Regional Development will be required to issue a second statement on the conformity of the plan, and the Department of the Environment will have to regard that second statement before it adopts the plan.
The fourth stage in the process will be the published Department of the Environment adoption statement.
The adoption statement will refer to the contents of the second statement on conformity, and it will confirm that the Department of the Environment has taken it into account before adopting the plan. I have outlined the crucial double-locking nature of the statement-of-conformity procedure. The procedure meets the concerns of the Committee for Regional Development, and I am satisfied that the regional development strategy has teeth.
12.00
Clause 3 makes provision for transitional arrangements for three development plans — the Cookstown area plan 2010, the Craigavon area plan 2010 and the Dungannon and South Tyrone area plan 2010. The provision addresses difficulties that arise because the preparation of those plans commenced several years before the regional development strategy was formulated. In accordance with normal planning practice, it was not desirable to freeze the preparation of those plans until the strategy was in place. Therefore, the Bill provides for an exemption for the three plans from the proposed requirement that development plans must be in general conformity with the regional development strategy.
Under clause 3(3)(a), the plans will be exempted from the requirement that any policy prepared under article 3(1A) of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 should be in general conformity with the strategy. Also under clause 3(3)(b), the Department of the Environment will be exempted from the requirement under article5 of the Strategic Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 to have regard to the regional development strategy in respect of those plans.
In simple terms, the three plans, as adopted, will not be required to undergo the "in general conformity with", or the "have regard to", test in respect of the regional development strategy. Also in respect of the three plans, the Department of the Environment will not be required to pass either test in respect of policy formulation. However, any subsequent change to the plans will mean that they are caught by the test.
The provisions under clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill are the only means for dealing with issues that have emerged regarding the relationship between the regional development strategy and development plans.
The Bill will have no additional cost implications for Departments, other bodies or individuals. It is likely that any work arising from these provisions can be handled using existing resources. The Bill is — as Members may have judged from my remarks — largely technical, and its provisions have not proved controversial.
Earlier this year the Department for Regional Development carried out a full public consultation exercise involving more than 400 organisations, interest groups and individuals. Only 31 responses were received, mainly from district councils, public bodies and Departments. Only one response — from the Planning Appeals Commission — raised a substantive issue. It concerned a point of fairness about the second statement of conformity in the context of the public inquiry procedure. Independent legal experts advised that there was no inherent unfairness in the provisions. I am satisfied that the Bill, as drafted, is clear and will not give rise to difficulties.
I appreciate the constructive role that the Committee for Regional Development played in the formulation, pre-introduction consultation and later work on the Bill. I ask the Assembly to support the Bill.

Mr Alban Maginness: I thank the Minister for acknowledging the work of the Committee and for his usual co-operation with it. I thank also the departmental officials who attended Committee meetings to brief members on the purpose and details of the Strategic Planning Bill.
The Committee spent much time examining the regional development strategy in detail. Every member recognised the importance of the strategy given that it establishes an important strategic planning framework for Northern Ireland for the next 25 years. Therefore, the Committee was determined to ensure that the strategy was balanced, challenging and, above all, deliverable. Given the expected impact of the regional development strategy on society over the next 25 years, the Committee paid particular and close attention to the pre-introduction consultation on the Strategic Planning Bill. As the Minister said, the Bill is largely technical, and its provisions have not proved to be controversial. Nonetheless, it is a critical and significant piece of legislation that will help to ensure the successful implementation of the regional development strategy.
When the Committee first examined the proposals in the Bill, it was apprehensive about the change of words from "to be consistent with" to "in general conformity with". There was concern that Departments might pay only lip service to the overarching authority of the regional development strategy. In the words of the Minister, the Committee was determined that the strategy should "have teeth". However, departmental officials and the Minister have explained the Bill’s main provisions. As the Minister said, the Bill will reaffirm the primacy and the authority of the regional development strategy and will contain the requirement for all future planning policies, development plans and development schemes to be in general conformity with the strategy. That has helped to reassure the Committee that the Bill will have teeth and will be an effective tool to ensure the successful implementation of the strategy.
The Committee is reassured by the provision in the Bill for a new statement of conformity in the statutory planning process. That is important, and the Minister has explained in detail how the statement of conformity procedure will operate. The procedure should provide the Department for Regional Development with the robust policing role required to assess whether a development plan is in general conformity with the regional development strategy.
In conclusion, the Committee looks forward to considering the legislation and examining its clauses in detail. It is committed to conducting a detailed scrutiny and intends to consult widely and take evidence from interested parties.

Mr Peter Robinson: I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development for his constructive contribution. I welcome the Committee’s support and thank it for its role during this process.
The legislation will clarify and formalise the important relationship between the regional development strategy and the development plans. The Committee rightly pointed out the importance of the strategy as an overarching strategic framework within which development plans and policies must operate.
I note the general welcome for the change from "consistent with" to "in general conformity with". However, I note the Chairperson’s initial reservations on this, and I am persuaded, as are he and his Committee, that the approach will operate satisfactorily and ensure that the authority of the regional development strategy is not diminished.
I have been heartened by the expression of a view that was broadly endorsed by councils during the public consultation. Although councils recognise the importance of a regional strategy, many welcome the flexibility offered by the proposed change in the wording. Indeed, many have recognised the need to ensure the primacy of the regional development strategy. On the basis of independent legal advice, I am satisfied that the changed wording will not impugn the authority and the authoritative nature of the strategy. The primacy point is particularly important in relation to the new provisions to introduce statements of conformity before the publication and adoption of a draft plan. I am pleased that that provision was welcomed; it will provide a double-locking mechanism to maintain coherence and conformity with the regional development strategy.
Clearly — and I say this in the presence of the Minister of the Environment — it is not in anyone’s interest that the Department for Regional Development should be seen to object to a development plan by the Department of the Environment. In my opening remarks, which, I think, were made before the Minister arrived in the Chamber, I stressed the importance of my Department’s working closely with Department of the Environment officials to bring forward development plans that conform. My officials will draw up with the Department of the Environment a protocol for preparing development plans and setting the key milestones — not millstones — at which discussions will occur to ensure that they meet the key objectives of the regional development strategy. In short, the statement provision, coupled with the protocol, will go a long way to ensure that development plans are in conformity with the strategy.
Some people have raised concerns about the derogations provided for the three development plans. Having spoken to some of the representatives from the councils concerned, I believe that there is a general welcome in those areas for the provisions of the Bill. Concerns had been expressed that the plans would be receiving a "get-out-of-jail" card for the foreseeable future. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The derogation applies to only those three plans as adopted. The decision taken on the derogation was a pragmatic one. Each of the plans commenced considerably in advance of the regional development strategy, and it was only fair and reasonable that they could not have been expected to anticipate the final content of the strategy. Commitments and planning permissions that had been given during the course of their preparation meant that in some respects, most notably in relation to housing capacities, they were not aligned with the regional development strategy.
I must emphasise again that in many respects those plans reflect the key themes and objectives of the regional development strategy. They each contain a sustainable framework that sets an important policy context, against which local development proposals will be assessed. As I have already said, the derogation given is in respect only of the three plans as adopted. Any alteration or replacement to a plan will switch the lights back on, and the entire plan will have to pass the test of being in general conformity with the regional development strategy.
I welcome the supportive comments made by the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development. I ask the House to support the Second Stage of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Strategic Planning Bill (NIA 17/01) be agreed.

Mr Jim Wilson: The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for Regional Development.

Marriage Bill:Second Stage

Dr Sean Farren: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Marriage Bill (NIA 18/01) be agreed.
The Marriage Bill is intended to simplify, consolidate and, perhaps most importantly, bring a level of equality to the existing procedures in relation to the formalities and preliminaries that must be undertaken in order for a marriage to take place. Members will note from the outset that the Bill does not deal with, nor is it intended to deal with, the concept of marriage — the voluntary union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others. The Bill aims to provide a universal system that applies to all persons who wish to marry, while recognising and supporting the practices and principles that exist for those of different religions. It does so by implementing the vast majority of the recommendations that were submitted to the Government by the respected law reform body, the Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland. I thank the advisory committee for its invaluable work, especially the chairman, the Hon Mr Justice Girvan, who devoted much of his own time to the production of the report.
Members may be aware, whether from personal experience or knowledge of the existing system, that current marriage laws are based on a model set up in Victorian times. The premier statute is the Marriages (Ireland) Act 1844. Since then, the law has developed in a piecemeal fashion. There are more than 20 pieces of legislation on the statute book that a reader must refer to in order to gain a full knowledge of the current legal framework. The Bill aims to streamline and consolidate that and provide a much easier reference point for those wishing to know the legal requirements that they must follow before a marriage ceremony can take place.
The current law is not applied uniformly. Privileges in relation to the celebration, timing and venue of marriages are granted to certain religious groups, but not to others. The position on venues for religious and civil marriages is unnecessarily complex and unsatisfactory. Rules regarding notice of marriage and preliminary notification requirements are considered to be too complex. Rules relating to the registration of marriages require some streamlining.
It is in that context that the Bill comes before the Assembly for consideration. The advisory committee consulted closely and widely with all religious organisations and those in secular society, and it concluded that the existing system required wholesale change. The advisory committee noted that certain matters were operating well, therefore no changes are being made to matters such as the capability of parties to contract to a marriage or to the rules regarding age, kinship and affinity.
The Bill gives effect to the advisory committee’s recommendations and focuses on the principle of equality. It removes the existing legal differences between religions and is modelled on the Scottish system, which has worked effectively for the past 25 years. The system of marriage preliminaries is restructured, with the removal of archaic concepts, and provides a greater freedom of choice to couples wishing to marry. Removing unnecessary obstacles to marriage and making it more attractive to individuals will perhaps provide a further step in strengthening the commitment to stable family life.
The Bill contains several main features. In relation to religious marriages, there is a change of emphasis from the registration of buildings to the registration of the person performing the ceremony, known in the Bill as the "officiant". In other words, the relevant priest, minister, clergyman, pastor, registering officer or other officiant will now be registered under the new legislation. That will allow different religions to submit a list to their registrar general of those members able to celebrate a marriage. Therefore, it will be a matter for those Churches, as opposed to state-imposed requirements, as to where a wedding ceremony can take place. It will provide a greater variety of choice for couples wishing to engage in a religious marriage, but it will not impinge on the right of the Churches to regulate where and when marriages can take place.
Similarly, the law in relation to civil marriages is also being reformed. At present, couples can have a civil ceremony only at the local register office, which may not be the most attractive venue for a wedding. The Bill outlines a new statutory scheme in respect of venues for civil marriages. In essence, responsibility will be given to locally elected councils who, under guidance from the Registrar General, will be able to license alternative, and perhaps more attractive, marriage venues.
The system of preliminaries is to be made universally applicable. All couples wishing to marry will be required to obtain a marriage schedule that will contain all the relevant details. The requirement to live in the district in which the wedding is to take place can cause an artificial, and potentially annoying, inconvenience for some couples. Such archaic concepts will no longer apply. The current system, which is based around banns, licences and certificates, will be replaced by one system that applies equally to all, irrespective of religion or belief.
Changes to religious and civil marriages will appeal to more couples and may well persuade many people, particularly those who no longer live in Northern Ireland or who perhaps have historical connections to it, to come here to marry at a location of their choice. That, in turn, could result in a welcome boost for the tourist industry, as has been the experience in Scotland.
The Bill consolidates other issues and provides for general supplementary matters such as searches and registration districts. It also takes account of ancillary criminal offences.
A two-tier consultation process preceded the advisory committee’s report. The range of opinions received showed that there was widespread support for the reforms contained in the Bill. In addition, my officials carried out a follow-up consultation exercise last year that concentrated on the equality impact of the changes and allowed people a final opportunity to comment on the policy. Again, support for the advisory committee’s recommendations was almost universal.
The Bill will not come into effect immediately: it is the first stage of a process that will ultimately set up a new framework for marriage. Once the Regulations supplementing the Bill are in place, I shall take the steps necessary to bring the legislation into force. I expect that the scheme will be up and running at some time in 2003.
That is the general thrust of the Bill. It is probably human nature; but when speaking about marriage law, initial thoughts turn to issues such as the solemnity of marriage and related matters. I remind Members that the changes contained in the Bill will be made in the context of several key principles. The validity and solemnity of religious marriage is not in question. Interference with the existing freedoms of individual religions will be minimal. There will be equality of treatment for all religions and between people who wish to have a civil or religious marriage.
Finally, the Bill contains the aims of simplicity, transparency, ease of application and cost-effectiveness. This is an important area of law reform with a significant social impact. Marriage is not an institution to be entered into lightly, nor should the marriage ceremony be treated with anything other than solemnity and dignity. However, as we move forward into the twenty-first century, some of the aims and objectives of the existing system must be addressed, as must the level of state interference in the preliminaries to marriage.
The Bill will help to make the institution of marriage an attractive prospect for all people. In addition, it will promote Northern Ireland as a venue in which couples can get married, which can only be beneficial to our economy in the longer term, while recognising and upholding the basic tenets of marriage. Accordingly, I am happy to commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Given that marriage is a holy and permanent commitment, the Bill will be relevant for some time, but Members should note that the Minister intends to introduce a divorce Bill, which brings into doubt the permanence of marriage. However, the Marriage Bill provides for the different situations of people.
The Committee for Finance and Personnel found that the willingness of the Minister and the Office of Law Reform to facilitate its pre-introductory scrutiny of the Bill was important. It sets a precedent, which shows that Committees can become involved in discussions before Bills are introduced, and it gives Committees the opportunity to influence Bills and to deal with small issues at the outset. I welcome that development, and it is to be hoped that all Ministers will adopt that practice.
The Office of Law Reform is conducting an ongoing review of civil law, because developments in civil law here lag behind those in England, Scotland and Wales. The Marriage Bill has its foundation in the recommendations of the Law Reform Advisory Committee. In its report ‘Marriage Law’, the committee noted that it was especially impressed by the arrangements that have operated effectively in Scotland since the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977. As the Minister stated, the Marriage Bill is similar to that Act, and it incorporates many recent developments in Scotland, which are based on English law, that abolish rules relating to venues for religious and civil marriage.
The Committee wanted to ensure that consultation on the Bill’s proposals would be extensive, and departmental officials have assured members that it will be. The Committee recognises that responses to the consultation exercise have indicated widespread support for the modification of, and the proposed changes in, the law. Marriage law must be reformed to establish consistent good practice across the procedural and legal requirements for the formalities of the marriage ceremony, whether in church or in a special venue chosen by the couple. The Bill does not address same-sex marriages, and it contains little that could be considered controversial.
The Bill acknowledged the principle of equality and will be welcomed by many, young and old, who do not attend church but would prefer something other than a short ceremony in a registry office. The Bill offers people a choice of venues. It is to be hoped that local councils will use imagination to make ceremonies more appropriate and welcoming to couples and their families. The Committee hopes that the improved provisions will cover a broad band and bring joy to many couples on the happiest day of their lives.
The Committee will consider the Bill in detail and scrutinise its provisions carefully.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: Members must acknowledge the needs and wishes of people who choose to marry. Many people do not wish to take the traditional approach. Marriage is a life-changing decision, and values and beliefs have changed considerably since previous marriage law was introduced. People must have a choice; therefore, I welcome the Second Stage of the Marriage Bill. I commend the Minister for bringing Northern Ireland’s marriage laws into the twenty-first century. The Minister said that current marriage law dates back to the Marriage (Ireland) Act 1844. Although it has served us well in the past, its time is surely up. Will the Minister tell the House why this is a suitable time to amend the legislation?
I also welcome the fact that the Bill streamlines marriage procedures and removes much of the complexity associated with planning a wedding, especially in regard to venues and officiants, while offering greater equality. The current trend is for people to celebrate their union in less formal settings, and we should facilitate that.
The Minister has already mentioned the boost to the tourist industry in Scotland, and I am sure that in future we will get many requests for new venues at which weddings can be performed. For example, people could choose our own tourist destinations, such as the Giant’s Causeway or the Carrick-a-Rede rope bridge, or perhaps even scuba diving in Lough Neagh. Who knows?
Many people who take their vows take marriage seriously, and their celebrations would be improved if they had the opportunity to choose a different venue. I support the motion.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I welcome the Bill. As the first Protestant Member to speak on the Bill, I think that there is agreement about it. There is no doubt that the present law discriminates against many people. For instance, it discriminates on time: if you are of a certain religion, you can marry only between certain hours on certain days, but if you do not happen to be of that religion, you cannot marry on certain days or at certain hours. If people belong to a particular church they can have a special licence to marry in their own home, whereas others who do not belong to a church or religious group that is permitted a special licence cannot have any such privilege.
The financial and explanatory memorandum suitably describes the basis of the Bill:
"The current law stems from a series of statutes dating back to the early Victorian era. The system of marriage preliminaries has not developed on a uniform basis and privileges in relation to the celebration, timing and place of actual marriage are granted to certain religious groups and not to others. The current rules relating to religious and civil marriage venues are unnecessarily complex and unsatisfactory, and certain churches are afforded greater autonomy than others that are subject to a larger amount of state control."
Those laws were discriminatory, and I am glad that they will be abolished.
I should like to associate myself with what the Minister said about the advisory committee. That committee did a very good job, and it started from the basis that discrimination would cease and that everybody would stand on a common platform. The real basis of the change relates to places of worship. In the old days the venue was registered and licensed for marriage, but the Bill will license the minister or the officiant. I have studied the law in Scotland, because I have relationships with churches in Scotland, and I have found that that law is good. It is simple compared to our current Regulations.
One has only to look at marriage law to see the number of new churches that were not given a special provision to facilitate their people to marry outside their own place of worship. All those matters are taken care of in the Bill, which I welcome. The majority of people in Northern Ireland, regardless of their religious convictions, or even if they have no such convictions, will welcome the Bill, because it puts everyone on a common platform, and it will certainly benefit people.
There are different marriage areas in Belfast; for instance, a person can get married in Castlereagh only if he lives there. People must claim that they live in an area where they want to get married, even though they do not. They have to obtain an accommodation address. It is a most awkward situation. All these aspects are to be regulated.
My conviction is that marriage should be permanent. However, the Bill does not deal with the doctrine of marriage, but with the methodology of getting married. We will be taking a closer look at marriage when the divorce Bill comes before the House. At that point there will be a different form of debate.
This is a very good Bill: it will be beneficial to all, and I hope that it will be passed and will be up and running next year. Christian marriage can be beautifully and reverently celebrated at venues other than places of worship, and I do not see why ceremonies should not be performed in such places.
Yesterday, a young lady down at the BBC tackled me. She had a microphone in her hand and she asked: "Where is the most wonderful place to be married?" I replied: "Young lady, it is the wonderful woman I married that I was worried about — it was not the place that mattered". True love is the real basis for marriage — love that can stand the strains of time and living. The two must grow together and, as the scripture says, "they shall be one flesh".
The great commentator Matthew Henry said when writing on the making of a woman that she was to remember that she was not taken from a man’s head so as to rule him; she was not taken from a man’s hand to control him; she was taken from beside his heart and under his arm for love and protection. Where love rules in a marriage then all the other situations — [Interruption — Parliament Buildings evacuated due to a fire alert].
The sitting was suspended at 12.38 pm.
On resuming (Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair) —
2.00 pm

Mr Jim Wilson: Rev Dr Ian Paisley was interrupted before the Assembly was suspended.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I was telling the House about a great Bible commentator, Matthew Henry, who wrote about the making of woman. He pointed out that she was not taken from man’s head, for she was not for him to rule, and that she was not taken from man’s feet, for she was not to be trampled on. He said that she was taken from near man’s heart to be loved and from under his arm to be protected. The lesson for us all is that the supremacy of love is the basis for the ideal marriage and for the permanence of marriage. Love can sweeten all things — even marriage.

Dr Sean Farren: I thank Members who contributed to this short debate on the Marriage Bill. Their remarks were essentially complimentary. They appreciated the fact that the Bill is before the House, they appreciated the work of the advisory committee on the recommendations on which the Bill is based and they complimented the Committee on the wide consultation before the Bill was drafted.
The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, Mr Molloy, highlighted the consultation with that Committee. He underlined its exemplary nature, holding it up to other Committees as a model for consultation in the early stages of preparing Bills. I thank him for his appreciation of the work of my departmental officials.
In welcoming the Bill, Ms Lewsley asked why the legislation is being introduced now. Given the references to the Scottish legislation, one could say that it is long overdue. Pressure was mounting, especially from religious organisations and churches, Christian and non-Christian, that feel that they are not treated with the same consideration in legislation as other religions are. They feel that the way in which they are ignored or treated differently could amount to a form of discrimination. As we must have regard to our equality legislation, the matter was urgent.
During the process, some 90 religious organisations were consulted. That number surprises me, but, nonetheless, it indicates the extent to which the committee and officials from my Department were prepared to go, following the committee’s recommendations, to ensure that all views and concerns related to those aspects of marriage were fully consulted on and satisfaction achieved with respect to them. I acknowledge the appreciation expressed by Dr Paisley, as a representative of one of the smaller churches, at least in numerical strength — I hope he does not mind me putting it in that way — with regard to the attempt to achieve satisfaction, fair treatment and equality for all the groups concerned.
Patricia Lewsley, in highlighting venues that might be used for the conduct of marriage ceremonies in Northern Ireland, mentioned the Giant’s Causeway and Carrick-a-Rede, which are within my own and Dr Paisley’s constituency. I trust that numbers will flock to those venues to solemnise their marriages, if they wish to step outside the more traditional locations. I do not imagine that venues of such considerable beauty, providing a dramatic setting and start to married life, could be found anywhere else in Northern Ireland.
The degree of satisfaction expressed by those who have spoken, and the silence of those who have not, indicates that we can anticipate that the Second Stage of this Bill can be passed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Marriage Bill (NIA 18/01) be agreed.

Mr Jim Wilson: The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

Pollution Prevention and Control Bill: Second Stage

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill (NIA 19/01) be agreed.
The Bill is necessary to enable Northern Ireland to meet its European commitments in a key environmental area. It is also necessary to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland enjoy the same standard of environmental protection as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. This legislation should have been in place in 1999, and the reasons behind the delay are, no doubt, well known to the Assembly. However, its continued absence is already subject to infraction proceedings from Europe. It is vital, therefore, that it be brought into operation as quickly as possible if we are to avoid the real possibility of financial penalties for non-compliance.
The main purpose of the Bill, and the subordinate legislation to be made under it, is to provide a statutory framework to enable transposition of EC Directive 96/61 on integrated pollution prevention and control. That Directive is designed to control pollution from industrial sources. Its aim is to provide for a high level of protection for the environment through the establishment of a regulatory framework to prevent or reduce emissions to air, water and land as a result of industrial activities. The Directive’s key feature is that it provides for an integrated approach to dealing with pollution from major industrial installations. That is designed to avoid potential problems that may arise if separate approaches are taken to controlling releases to air, water and land. That integrated approach is similar to the current arrangements under the Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.
The Bill shares many features with the current arrangements under the 1997 Order. Most importantly, it will provide for the retention of the regulatory structures of that Order, with a chief inspector assuming responsibility for regulating those installations listed in annex 1 of the Directive. That means that all such installations will be assessed against their capacity to cause significant pollution to air, water and land. Moreover, the provisions and regulatory structures of the 1997 Order will be repealed and re-enacted in the new legislation. That will remove the need for pollution from industrial installations to be regulated under two separate pieces of legislation, and it will minimise the disruption to industry caused by the new arrangements.
I estimate that approximately 250 existing installations will be subject to the new Directive controls. Some are already regulated under the existing arrangements, but several installations will be brought under control for the first time to meet the Directive’s requirements. The main additions above a certain capacity will be: installations for intensive rearing of poultry and pigs; sites for landfilling waste; slaughterhouses; installations for the treatment and processing of milk; installations for the treatment and processing of animal raw materials; and installations for the treatment and processing of vegetable raw materials.
Several other changes will be made to the current controls. Permits will be granted for installations rather than processes, which will enable a more broad-based and comprehensive approach. The range of environmental impacts to be covered when determining applications will be much wider and will include noise, site restoration, accident prevention, energy efficiency, and the selection and use of raw materials. No integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) installation will be exempted from control because of the triviality of its emissions.
In the main, this is an enabling Bill. The detail of the new regulatory controls will be set out in draft regulations, which will be published for consultation in the next few weeks. In addition to providing an opportunity for full and open scrutiny of the proposals, publication of the draft regulations will help to inform consideration of the Bill as it goes through its various stages. The parallel processing of the Bill and the regulations will also ensure that all the legislation is enacted with the minimum of delay, thereby reducing the serious risks associated with the infraction proceedings, as I mentioned earlier.
In addition to providing the statutory framework for transposing of Directive, the Bill has two other main purposes. First, it will provide a general power for EU measures to be transposed by way of regulations, thereby avoiding the need for primary legislation. Any measure intended to be implemented in that way will be required to be designated by Order, and any regulations made under that provision will be subject to full scrutiny and consultation in the normal way.
Secondly, the Bill provides new transitional provisions for waste disposal licences under the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. That will facilitate the transition to the new waste management licensing system that is due to be introduced in 2003 and ensure that no one is penalised unfairly because a waste disposal licence has lapsed inadvertently.
My Department set out its policy proposals in a consultation paper that was published in June 2001. The paper was issued to 500 organisations, groups and individuals. Some 30 responses were received, the majority of which welcomed the proposals. Only 16 respondents made substantive comments. Of those, eight were accepted; only one response required a change in legislation, and the other seven can be met through clarification of the proposals. The remaining eight comments were rejected; three were outside the scope of the legislation, one was a clear breach of the Directive, and four were rejected on policy grounds.
The Bill is necessary to enable us to meet our European commitments and to provide a high-quality environment for the people of Northern Ireland. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Rev William McCrea: In September 2001, the Committee for the Environment considered and responded to a consultation document issued by the Department of the Environment on its proposals for transposing EC Directive 96/61 on integrated pollution prevention and control. The Committee subsequently raised several concerns.
I appreciate the need for Northern Ireland to meet its European commitment, and the Minister and the Department’s desire for a high-quality environment. The debate is not riveting for many people, but the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill is important, and it has implications for the community.
When departmental officials appeared before the Committee and realised that members had concerns, it strove to deal with those and other concerns. That is appreciated. Officials have appeared before the Committee readily in order to clarify outstanding issues. They will make a presentation this Thursday morning as deliberations continue on the Bill.
The concerns include the potential impact on the poultry industry in particular, the farming industry in general, and the proposed level of fees across all sectors. The Committee will keep a close eye on how those concerns, and others that have been identified in our consultation exercise with key interest groups, have been addressed in the Bill or in the draft Regulations that will result from the Bill. The Minister emphasised the value and importance of the Regulations, and draft Regulations will be available to the Committee in early July.
I must advise the House of the discussions that the Committee has had with the Minister about his proposal to use the accelerated passage procedure to progress the Bill. The Minister wrote to me on 22 May 2002 to explain why he believed that it was necessary to use the accelerated passage procedure, thus removing any Committee Stage scrutiny of the Bill. He drew to the Committee’s attention the fact that infraction proceedings are lurking in the background and overshadowing much of the discussions.
Although the Committee appreciates fully the potential cost of infraction proceedings by the EC, there was nothing to convince members that EC proceedings were so far advanced that there would not be time for the Committee to complete some form of scrutiny of the Bill. The Committee discussed the issue, and I informed the Minister, clearly and scrupulously, of the decision that the Committee had reached. There was an equally balanced decision regarding a particular stance, and an impasse ensued.
Consequently, the Committee suggested an alternative way forward to the Minister as a follow-up to his discussions with us on 2 June 2002. The outcome was a proposal from the Minister to complete the Committee Stage by mid-September. The Committee agreed with the proposal and I assure the Minister that it is still the Committee’s intent. We have no desire to delay the Bill, but we want appropriate and proper scrutiny to ensure that we take on board the considerations of everyone who has an interest.
This is the Second Stage of the Bill. The Committee has been put in a position in which, if it wants to scrutinise the Bill, it must do so and report by mid-September. Some people may say that the Committee was wrong to oppose the Bill’s accelerated passage. They may ask why the Committee should put extra pressure on itself when it already has three Bills at Committee Stage, with another due in early September. The reason is simple. One of the most important roles that any Statutory Committee has is the scrutiny of legislation. The Committee believes that it would be wrong to forgo such scrutiny except in exceptional circumstances.
I assure the Minister that, despite the severe time limitations imposed on us in the circumstances, we shall be, as usual, diligent and thorough in examining the details of the Bill, and we shall return with amendments at Consideration Stage if necessary. The Committee has reached out to the Minister, and the Minister and his Department have reacted to the Committee’s concerns. That is a healthy exchange, and it is in the interest of having proper and appropriate legislation, which the community can feel has been scrutinised by those with that authority.

Mr George Savage: I am concerned about the Bill, because I have heard it mentioned in several Departments over the past week. I have listened carefully to the Minister, and one of my greatest concerns is, as is stated in paragraph 11 of the accompanying explanatory and financial memorandum:
"There is no provision for any installations to be exempted from control, for example, because of the ‘triviality’ of its emissions."
Will the Minister explain what that means?
Furthermore, paragraph 12 states:
"Existing installations in so far as they are not substantially changed, were afforded a period of grace of up to eight years after the Directive was brought into effect, during which they would need to be upgraded to meet the Directive’s requirements. All installations therefore must be permitted by 31 October 2007."
That is all very well, and I do not wish to encourage pollution. However, the Minister spoke this week about pollution in Lough Neagh, for which the farmers are always being blamed. If the Minister or any other Member thinks that farmers are going to be a soft touch and will accept that blame, they are in for a surprise.
What about organisations that receive Crown immunity? There are far greater polluters in other sectors. Those matters must be taken into consideration. I have every sympathy for the Minister; he has a difficult job to do. However, we must have a level playing field. I do not want to see people blamed for pollution for which they are not responsible.
I am standing behind the Minister now, but I would ask him the same question were I in front of him. Can he prove that the agriculture industry is the main polluter? That is the big factor. Many matters, including fraud, were talked about over the past six months in various Departments. However, when the cards are on the table, all accusations must be proven, and that is what the Minister must do.
I do not wish to be awkward, but I must defend the agriculture industry. Other sectors are given time to get their act together — it should be the same for everybody. Farmers do not want to cause pollution. They are conscious of the effects, and they are proud of the environment. Other people are more responsible for pollution, but they get away scot-free. There must be a level playing field.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: As the Minister said, the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill is designed to protect the environment by the reduction and prevention of emissions to air, water and land through industrial activities, and to comply with the Industrial Pollution, Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive. Issues such as waste minimisation and the handling of waste on site are vital to reduce the amount of environmental pollution and to place the responsibility on those who produce the pollutants. The Bill addresses the wider range of installations, such as the intensive rearing of pigs and poultry, landfill sites, slaughterhouses, and the treatment and processing of animal and raw materials. Those are some of the areas affected by the new legislation — it is not only farmers who pollute the environment.
Permits will be granted, and issues mentioned by the Minister, such as noise, site restoration, accident prevention, energy efficiency, and raw material selection and use, will be taken into consideration. Installations will also have to show that an assessment has been conducted of the environmental risks and that adequate staff training and provision for appropriate maintenance of the system exists. The permits will be reviewed periodically and will take into account technology and other changes.
The standards, objectives and requirements will be regulated. I welcome the fact that the Department will make information accessible to the public on industrial pollution and waste. The issue of enforcement will be addressed through regular inspections, and the inspectors will have the power to take samples and to arrange preventative or remedial action at the expense of the permit holders.
The Pollution Prevention and Control Bill is another Bill that has been forced on the Assembly by an EU Directive that the Assembly must implement. It is the latest in a long line of EU Directives that direct rule Ministers neglected to put in place. The consequence of not complying with the Directive could mean a heavy financial penalty for many ratepayers in Northern Ireland. I support the Bill.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The introduction of the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill is in response to the IPPC Directive in Northern Ireland. The European Court of Justice delivered its judgement on 7 March 2002, so new legislation is required in order to avoid financial penalties. That could happen before the end of 2002 and will become a reality in 2003. That is why I support the Minister in getting the Bill through quickly.
There is great concern in the farming community, and the farming industry is under financial pressures. An incentive scheme to improve facilities should be offered, and I urge the Department of the Environment to take the farmers’ concerns into account when drawing up the final Regulations.
There is a need for significant improvements in agriculture practices. I advocate a minimum six-month storage requirement for organic waste on all farms and a complete ban on slurry spreading from October to the end of March. However, considering the weather that we have had recently, that would not work.
I am putting this forward because it would improve water quality. Why do I come to that conclusion? The reason is that slurry-spreading on waterlogged or frozen ground creates a high risk of water pollution. There is a case for a straightforward prohibition of overloading land with excessive nitrates from slurry or fertilisers.
General provisions in the water pollution Acts and waste management Acts make it an offence to cause, or to permit, polluting matter to enter waters, or to store, recover or dispose of waste in a manner that causes, or is likely to cause, environmental problems. However, in most cases the odds of securing a prosecution are stacked too high against public authorities, because they do not have the resources for the monitoring and investigations needed for widespread, effective enforcement. Too heavy an onus of proof is required in order to demonstrate that pollution occurs through careless malpractice.
I am also concerned that those who cause the biggest pollution problems have Crown immunity. Organisations that cause a fish kill should be brought to book, but unfortunately, they are immune from prosecution. Farmers have to work through bad weather conditions, financial problems, et cetera. I encourage the Minister to do his utmost to help them. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr Billy Armstrong: The Bill provides a framework to control industrial pollution in Northern Ireland. It offers a holistic approach to land, water and air pollution, in line with EC Directive 96/61, and it aims to address industrial pollution setting out the framework whereby that can be achieved. However, it must be stressed that the Bill is only a framework.
The Bill will affect many businesses as well as those in the poultry-and pig-farming sectors. Preventing pollution is beneficial to the environment. The role that farmers have played as stewards of the land must be recognised and credited. The Bill seeks to impose penalties for failure to comply with environmental standards. However, it does not set out adequately the best available techniques to be adopted as the yardstick to assess whether a business complies. It is vital that Departments concerned with the Bill co-operate by assisting the industries that will be directly affected. Departments must offer an incentive to comply with more stringent environmental controls. There is no point in forcing farmers to comply with tighter controls if it is simply not possible for them to do so.
With those considerations in mind, further environmental legislation must not only push industry into complying; it must lead industry through supporting schemes such as waste management. I fear that those whom the Bill will affect must be all too aware of the consequences of incorporating the EC Directive into our law. Current law — the Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 — weighs environmental concerns against the costs associated with undertaking practice differently. However, if the Bill were fully implemented, only best available techniques would be considered; financial considerations would be excluded.
I am conscious that this new approach may be less favourable to industry than is the case at present. We are told that general binding rules may offset some of the extra financial burdens associated with the legislation, but we wonder how that can be so.
The Bill is a framework for introducing an EU Directive to our law. I understand that we must avoid penalties from Europe, which would be imposed if the legislation were not introduced. However, I urge the Minister to consider the affected industries when determining the rigour that will be used to implement the Directive. Also, can he assure the House that the legislation is being adopted consistently throughout European member states?
Can the Minister clarify whether additional support will be given to projects such as anaerobic digesters for waste, in the light of the legislation? I fear that farmers could face fines if no realistic alternative course of action exists. Legislation must be fair, reasonable and lead industry to implement more environmentally sensitive measures, which could bring great benefits.

Mr Sam Foster: I wish to compliment the Mount Charles caterers. We were rushed out of the Building, so many people arrived back for lunch at the same time, and staff catered very well for everyone.
Having been in Dermot Nesbitt’s position, I do not want to say too much other than that this is a worthwhile, important and necessary Bill. Less pollution, urgent measures for its prevention and greater control will benefit society. Less pollution would mean better health, and with healthier people, there would be less medical need. The Bill is also environmentally friendly.
Failure to transpose the Directive into Northern Ireland legislation will result in infraction proceedings against the United Kingdom, and, although the Bill is at an advanced stage, the risk of heavy fines is very real. To avoid those fines, the Bill must be granted Royal Assent before the Assembly is dissolved for the May 2003 elections.
The European Court of Justice delivered its judgement against the United Kingdom on 7 March 2002, ruling that the Directive had not been implemented. Unless the Northern Ireland Executive can demonstrate to the European Commission that the necessary legislation has been enacted, the Commission will go back to the European Court of Justice to have financial penalties imposed. That could happen before the end of 2002, with fines imposed in mid- to late-2003.
As the Minister has said, the Bill is largely enabling, and the Environment Committee will be able to consider fully its substance. I support the need to implement the Bill — it is more important than most people realise.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I thank Members for their comments. I will address each in the order in which they were made. I thank the Chairperson of the Environment Committee, Dr McCrea, for his comments and for appreciating the need for speedy implementation. That is important. He referred to accelerated passage, and the fact that need and efficient delivery have equal priority. I appreciate that he must do something by September, but I have not put him in that position. I think that it was a necessity; it put us all in that position. Therefore, I thank him for his clear intention to have that completed by September 2002.
He mentioned agriculture, as did other Members. I am conscious that more Members seem to raise issues at the Second Stages of environmental Bills than in relation to other Bills at that Stage. He referred to the potential impact of the Bill on poultry farming and the farming industry in general. The extension applies to poultry and pigs only at a certain level — whether it may be 4,000 poultry, 750 sows or 2,000 pigs. The Bill applies only to establishments with that number of animals and birds.
No installation will be exempt from the new controls. No one is excluded. The Department can do nothing about that. That has been made clear. The Department has no option but to bring such poultry and pig installations under the new controls. Failure to do so would be a clear breach of the EU Directive, and would expose the Department to the risk of further infraction proceedings. The thresholds that I referred to are set out in the Directive, and must be applied.
I am conscious of the need to alleviate costs to the farming sector. Mr Savage said that farmers are being blamed for pollution. I come from a farming background and an agricultural constituency, and I put it on the record that I do not blame farmers. I want the polluter — whoever that may be — to pay. The principle that applies in waste management should do so in this context also. The principle of proximity is also similar: he who creates the problem should deal with the problem. I want to make that clinically clear.
However, the Department wants to assist where possible. For example, the Directive says that the installations that I have referred to do not have to be phased in until October 2007. In that case, I propose to defer the call-up for existing agricultural installations until November 2006 to January 2007. The Department will put that off for as long as possible in an effort to accommodate the agriculture industry. However, new installations, and those that have undergone changes, must be brought into line with the Directive immediately.
The Department has also tried to accommodate the agriculture industry with regard to the charges that will be applied. I stress that those matters will be subject to regulation and consultation. They are not part of the enabling power but will go through full consultation. The charges will be in line with those in Great Britain, which have been reduced from the original estimates in order to lessen the impact on the agriculture sector. Those are two examples of how the Department is trying to accommodate that sector.
I want to address the comments made by my party Colleague Mr Savage, who asked why there is no provision for the exemption of triviality. It is quite simple; there are two relevant issues that I want to explain. Under the 1997 legislation, trivial pollution could be dismissed; there is no such exception in this Bill. However, in trivial cases, the level of charges will reflect the extent of the seriousness. Although there is no exclusion, allowances are made. Therefore, a balance is struck.
I referred to the fact that farmers are being blamed all the time. Farmers are not soft touches. I have never thought that for one minute. As the saying goes, they know which side their bread is buttered on. I have every sympathy with the farming community. My officials have closely liaised with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and with the farming industry, on the issues associated with the introduction of the new controls. Earlier this year, officials made a presentation to the Northern Ireland Poultry Federation and the central pigs committee of the Ulster Farmers’ Union on the implications of this Directive for intensive pig and poultry farms.
Since then, two working groups, involving my officials, officials from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and industry representatives, have met to discuss the detailed requirements of the Directives and how they can be applied to the farming industry. The groups will continue to meet as necessary in the lead-up to the introduction of the legislation.
I am very conscious of the farming sector. I meet with its representatives and will continue to do so. The agrisector is about more than farming, and I am conscious of the contribution that it makes to the gross domestic product of Northern Ireland. I am also conscious of the smallness of farms and the difficulties faced by the agriculture sector in Northern Ireland. As an elected body in Northern Ireland, the Assembly should be conscious of, and take cognisance of, those factors. I have tried to mention aspects where we have done that.
I thank the Deputy Chairperson of the Environment Committee for her support for the Bill. I also thank Mick Murphy for his comments about recognising the farming community’s concerns. I hope that I addressed that. We will continue to address those concerns. Mr Murphy also raised the issue of Crown immunity — that issue has not gone away. It remains a live issue that must be dealt with.
Mr Armstrong mentioned best available techniques and how to deal with them. Best available techniques are prepared on an EU-wide basis to identify the best techniques for the prevention or minimisation of pollution, taking sectoral affordability into account. That will inform the national technique guidance, which is uniformly applied across the United Kingdom. That aspect was also raised by Mr Armstrong.
A further purpose of best available techniques is to inform the decision-making process for individual permits. Whether it be the chief inspector or the district councils making the decisions, the Department will still have a role to play in ensuring consistency.
Mr Armstrong mentioned anaerobic digesters. My officials will carefully take note of Hansard and reply directly to him about that.
The matter of whether general binding rules could apply, as opposed to issuing permits to individuals, was raised. I hope that they can apply, avoiding the need for individually tailored permits and thus reducing the costs involved. That is a further element of the attempt to reduce costs, which is required for the benefit of Northern Ireland. I thank my predecessor, Mr Foster, for his supportive comments, which were mindful of the benefit to Northern Ireland and of the costs involved, as well as of the sensitivity of the matter.
I thank those who made constructive comments, and I acknowledge again the positive contribution made by the Rev Dr William McCrea and the Committee for the Environment to this sensitive issue. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill (NIA 19/01) be agreed.

Mr Jim Wilson: The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for the Environment.

Budget (No 2) Bill: Final Stage

Resolved (with cross-community support):
That the Budget (No.2) Bill (NIA 16/01) do now pass. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Dr Farren).]

Extension to the Committee Stage of Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Rev William McCrea: I beg to move
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 17 October 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (NIA7/01).
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall explain why my Committee seeks an extension. The Committee began its formal consideration of the Bill on 21 May 2002. Since that date the Committee has consulted all local councils, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and the Northern Ireland Local Government Association to hear their views on the proposed legislation; and it took oral evidence from representatives of Craigavon Council and Belfast City Council and from officials of the Department of the Environment and of the Northern Ireland Office.
Consideration of this Bill is challenging in that it proposes to legislate by introducing new provisions in three unrelated areas. The first of those is a new method for distributing the general grant payable to local councils. The Bill also includes provision for reducing the general grant where it is held that a council has failed to deliver a reasonable standard of economy, efficiency and effectiveness in discharging its functions.
Secondly, the Bill provides for new powers on economic development, effectively removing the limit of five pence in the pound on economic development for those councils wishing to invest more. Moreover, councils must have regard to guidance from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.
Finally, the Bill provides for new council powers on community safety. These will allow a council to participate in a relevant community safety partnership. However, they will also allow the Department of the Environment to bring forward an order to the Assembly to confer or impose on councils other functions to enhance community safety in their areas.
None of the issues was straightforward, and the Committee identified significant amendments that must be made to the Bill. They affect all the areas mentioned and would result in changes to four of the principal clauses of the 11-clause Bill. The departmental officials responsible for the Bill have worked diligently and have been responsive to the Committee’s queries. It is to be hoped that the Minister will agree to table the Committee’s amendments, and possibly some others, for the Consideration Stage debate.
The Committee needs time to explore other issues outlined in this complex Bill. Last week, it received a substantial submission from the Northern Ireland Office, which seeks to define community safety partnerships and to clarify how they differ from district policing partnerships. The extension to the Committee Stage is necessary because the outstanding issues will require due and proper deliberation by the Committee. Therefore it is necessary to ask the Assembly for this extension. However, the Committee hopes to complete its work by an earlier date. I ask Members to support the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 17 October 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (NIA 7/01).

Report by the Senior Salaries Review Body

Mr Jim Wilson: The next four motions relate to the report by the Senior Salaries Review Body. Of these, one is a substantive motion and the others are consequential. I therefore propose to group the motions and to conduct one debate only. If the substantive motion is not carried, the consequential motions will not be moved.

Rev Robert Coulter: I beg to move
That this Assembly accepts recommendations 2 to 9 set out in the report by the Review Body on Senior Salaries, Report No 52, on the Review of Pay and Allowances and agrees that recommendation 1 should be reviewed at a later date.
The following motions stood in the Order Paper:
That this Assembly agrees to amend the Northern Ireland Assembly (Members’ Salaries) Determination 2000 as follows—
In the Schedule, column (1), paragraph 1, after the words "Chairperson of any Statutory Committee" insert ", the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee of the Centre". — [Rev Robert Coulter.]
That this Assembly agrees to amend the Northern Ireland Assembly (Members’ Allowances) Determination 2000 as follows —
In the Schedule, paragraph 3(2) leave out "£35,756" and insert "£48,000". — [Rev Robert Coulter.]
That this Assembly approves the draft Statutory Rule "Allowances to Members of the Assembly (Winding Up Allowance) Amendment Order (Northern Ireland) 2002". — [Rev Robert Coulter.]

Rev Robert Coulter: The motions relate to the recommendations contained in the report of the Senior Salaries Review Body. In February 1999, the Assembly made the following resolution:
"That this Assembly will accept the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body in respect of the salaries and allowances for Ministers and Members".
When I moved that motion in the House on behalf of the Commission and recommended to Members that we accept an independent body’s decision about Ministers’ and Members’ salaries and allowances, I said that
"No one can then accuse Members of feathering their own nests. We will be accepting a principle of integrity and openness in dealing with public funds." — [Official Report, Vol 2, p124].
I should like Members to keep those thoughts in mind during the debate.
The first motion, which is on the report by the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB), seeks the Assembly’s agreement to implement recommendations 2 to 9 of the review body’s report. It also seeks agreement for recommendation 1 to be reviewed at a later date.
Recommendation 2 relates to payments for the Chairpersons of the Committee of the Centre and the Public Accounts Committee. The report comments that those two Standing Committees
"are regarded as Committees with particularly heavy remits".
The report recommends that those Chairpersons should receive the same remuneration as the Statutory Committees’ Chairpersons. It is estimated that that sum be £22,000 in this financial year. The second motion proposes the changes to the Northern Ireland Assembly (Members’ Salaries) Determination 2000 that are necessary to enable those payments to be made.
Recommendation 3 of the SSRB report says that
"following adjustments to the salaries of MPs and office holders at Westminster … a review of the relevant salaries in the Northern Ireland assembly should be undertaken."
That recommendation was made because of concerns that the SSRB raised about the slippage that has occurred in the differential between the salaries of MPs and MLAs. However, I shall return to that point in more detail shortly.
Recommendation 4 suggests that
"the Assembly Commission provides guidance on job descriptions and pay ranges for Members’ support staff."
The report says that Members must have the "right level of support" and recommends that they
"should be able to employ the equivalent of two full-time staff".
It suggests that Members may find it useful to
"have guidance on job descriptions and the range of pay within which individual rates should be set taking account of experience and ability."
The broad advice in the Hay Report, in appendix E of the SSRB Report, is a useful framework document, and, if the Assembly is content, the Commission will develop guidance for Members.
Recommendations 5 and 7 relate to an increase in the level of office costs allowance (OCA) to £48,000. The Hay Report says that
"We believe it is critically important for the effectiveness and reputation of the Assembly that Members are provided with sufficient funds to pay for professional and accessible support, to enable them to perform their Assembly and constituency duties effectively, and to assist individuals bringing problems to them. This will require a fairly substantial increase in the funds currently devoted to the OCA."
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
The SSRB report concludes that
"the current low levels of the OCA is an obstacle to the development of the Assembly: it deters Members from employing the staff needed to support them".
The motion proposing a change in the Northern Ireland Assembly (Members’ Allowances) Determination 2000 will give effect to the increase in the office costs allowance to £48,000 if the Assembly approves. That cost is estimated to be £1·28 million.
From previous debates on such matters, Members will know that the winding-up allowance for them is set at one third of office costs allowance. The current winding-up allowance is £11,617. If the Assembly approves the increase in OCA, a consequential increase should be made to that. The draft Statutory Rule laid in the Business Office on 17 June titled The Allowances to Members of the Assembly (Winding Up Allowance) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 makes provision for that to be increased to £16,000. That would come into operation on the day after the Assembly approved it.
Following on from the recommendations that provide for an increase in OCA to allow Members to employ two members of support staff, the SSRB has suggested in recommendations 6 and 8 that
"the Assembly Commission provide Members with guidance on standards and rental costs for offices [and that there should be] an increase in the central IT provision to include equipment for up to two members of staff for each MLA".
If that is agreed, the Commission will develop the guidance as suggested by the SSRB. The Commission will also put in place the necessary procedures for the provision of IT equipment for up to two members of staff for each Member, if the Assembly accepts that recommendation. The capital cost is estimated at £216,000, with annual running costs of £10,000.
The SSRB points out that, at present, Members are required to fund from OCA any changes necessary to constituency offices to meet the requirements of the disability discrimination legislation. In recommendation 9, the review body recommends that
"the Assembly considers central funding for costs arising from statutory requirements on disability."
If that recommendation is accepted, the Commission will give detailed and careful consideration to it.
I shall now deal briefly with recommendation 1 in the SSRB report, which relates to Members’ salaries, and ask Members to cast their minds back to my opening remarks. The SSRB has recommended that
"the slippage in an MLA’s salaries in comparison with that of a Westminster MP should be made good."
In 1999, the SSRB considered that the job weighting of an Assembly Member was 82% of that of a Westminster MP. In the present report, the review body reaches the same conclusions and proposes that the ratio of 82% should be retained. With the annual upgrading of salaries, that would increase Members’ salaries to £45,250.
Members need to be clear about the consequences of not adhering to the review body’s salary recommendation. To not implement the recommendation means stepping away from the principle of job weightings established by the review body, which the Assembly previously accepted and endorsed. It will mean that the job weighting of an MLA will drop to 74%, below that of a Member of the National Assembly for Wales, which does not have primary legislation powers.
Members will know from the ‘First report of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission’, which was debated in the Assembly yesterday, of the work accomplished by the Assembly and its Members from devolution in December 1999 to 31 March 2002. There were 125 plenary meetings, 8,477 questions for written answer, and 1,168 Committee meetings, with most Members sitting on two, and some on three, Committees. Some 71 Committee reports were produced and 34 Bills were introduced. Members will also know that in the past seven weeks 18 Bills have been introduced. None of that takes into account the amount of constituency work in which Members are also involved. That is the work of the Assembly. It is a sad comment on the standard of some of our reporters that they have not had the intelligence to accept that the Assembly does more than work one day a week.
The Commission is well aware of some Members’ views about increasing their salaries and is also aware of the views held by some that the Assembly is still not fully functioning, and that Members’ salaries should not, therefore, be increased.
I leave Members to draw their own conclusions from what I have said about whether the Assembly is functioning fully. In the light of Members’ and parties’ views on the salary increase recommended by the SSRB, the Commission proposes that no action be taken on the implementation of that recommendation at this time.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Sinn Féin’s position on pay increases is a matter of record, as is its opposition to any increase in the office costs allowance. In previous debates, Members have said that we could not reject the SSRB’s report. However, in the run-up to an election, Members have changed their tune and are running scared of the perception that they are lining their pockets, while all around them they see the consequences of poverty.
When the Assembly first debated the issue, John Fee, speaking for the Assembly Commission, said:
"The Assembly, when in shadow form, took the view that, as a matter of principle, we should follow SSRB recommendations on salaries, allowances and pensions." — [Official Report, Vol 5, p165].
He added:
"The Assembly Commission feels strongly, however, that it would be wrong to depart from the principles of the SSRB’s recommendations in the area of salaries, allowances or pensions. By following SSRB consistently we have an open and transparent method of fixing our remuneration and allowances package as recommended by an independent panel of experts. This gives us a sound basis on which to justify this package to our constituents and the wider public. Once we depart in one area from SSRB recommendations we lose the whole basis and justification for following the remainder." — [Official Report, Vol 5, p166].
What has changed? In a previous debate, Alex Maskey said:
"While it was important to have an independent judgement made by a body like the SSRB, we cannot slavishly follow all of its recommendations, because some of them are not appropriate." — [Official Report, Vol 5, p169].
Robert McCartney said:
"It is no excuse to say that the Senior Salaries Review Body recommended that salaries should be set on the basis of some mystical parity with other elected bodies. It is for Members here, regardless of what some other body may do or what legitimacy some other body may offer, to decide whether it is justified in voting, out of the public purse, emoluments and benefits of this kind. I submit that it is not. If Members continue in this, they will undermine public support. They will be seen as a bunch of elected people feathering their own nests, snorting and snuffling in the biggest trough they can find." — [Official Report, Vol 5, p170].
Conor Murphy said:
"The Assembly was entirely right to hand the determination of its salaries and allowances to the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB). However, the proposal for a substantial increase needs to be debated in the Chamber. If the SSRB had recommended a £10,000 cut in Members’ wages, there would definitely have been some debate. The Assembly should not run away from this…
The proposal for such a substantial increase when so many live under huge disadvantage must be looked at very seriously, especially as this is the first sitting of the Assembly since the transfer of powers. If the Assembly’s first act on receiving those powers is to vote itself a substantial pay rise, that will send out entirely the wrong message. Many people are living on less than the proposed increase, so it is only right that the Commission deliberate this matter further.
A number of points relate to my party and to pay increases. Sinn Féin Members did not take the salaries allowed during the shadow period. They took an allowance from the party, and no increases are planned for party members — even if salary increases are agreed. There is no difference between the treatment of Ministers and that of Back-Benchers, and, when setting up constituency offices, which provide an excellent service, the party decided that no family members would be considered for posts in them." — [Official Report, Vol 4, p12-13].
When the Assembly first agreed the motion from the shadow Executive, the shadow Commission urged the Assembly to commit itself to accepting the recommendation of the SSRB on Members’ salaries and other costs. That would mean making a commitment to accept the SSRB recommendation unseen, not only with regard to the report that we expect to be published within the next week, but the remainder of the life of the Assembly. Of course, subsequent Assemblies can decide whether to follow that practice.
If Members have views on the level of their salaries, they can meet the SSRB to express them. If the public believe that Members are being paid too much, they can contact the SSRB and make their case. Sinn Féin, like other parties, has met with the SSRB. We also made a written submission rejecting a pay rise and an increase in the office costs allowance.
As Assembly Members, we have a duty to the public. The public scrutinise our actions closely, which is both appropriate and welcome, and we have a duty to show that we are restrictive in rewarding finances to ourselves.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Will the Member give way?

Ms Michelle Gildernew: No, Mr McCarthy, I shall not give way.
In 1999, Sinn Féin welcomed the placing of decisions on salary rates with the SSRB. It makes for a more transparent and accountable system of government, and is preferable to MLAs deciding their own pay. However, that does not tie us to accepting the recommendations, or to making representations, to the SSRB.
Members also say that we cannot vote in favour of a pay rise for ourselves because the Assembly has not proved itself. Whatever the merits of that argument are, the reality is that we have already voted in favour of two substantial pay increases. We reject the proposal to increase the office costs allowance. Yes, there are good arguments in favour of employing more staff in our constituency offices, but it appears the height of hypocrisy to vote for an increase in personal office cost allowances, especially for those who voice the argument that we have yet to prove ourselves as an Assembly. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Robert McCartney: I listened to what the previous speaker said, and, insofar as she reiterates the views that I expressed in a previous debate, I endorse those views. I am happy that the Commission, in view of the public reaction to the proposed increase in salary, has acted with a degree of wisdom, and has decided to recommend to the Assembly that, at this time, there will be no acceptance of the SSRB’s suggestion that the salary should be increased to £45,000 or thereabouts.
I voiced my opposition to the acceptance of that increase publicly and shared a radio programme with the Minister of the Environment, Mr Nesbitt. Among other things, he indicated that democracy did not come cheaply, and therefore, to some extent, this pay rise would be justifiable. Like Rev Robert Coulter, he reiterated the vast amount of work that Members are alleged to be undertaking. All I can say is that, on that occasion, something like 20-odd people phoned in and not a single member of the public endorsed Mr Nesbitt’s view. Moreover, insofar as the proposed increase was the subject of communications to the press, I do not recollect a single letter in the local newspapers that endorsed any acceptance of the review body’s recommendation.
It is to be welcomed that the Commission has shown a great degree of wisdom in recognising the public view of a salary increase at this time. That is so, bearing in mind the enormous black hole in the capital infrastructure of the Province, and the enormous amount of money that will be required to make it good. It also takes note of the tremendous defects in the services that are being offered to the people of Northern Ireland, particularly health services. Our waiting lists now enjoy the unenviable distinction of being not only the longest in the United Kingdom, but in Europe. Therefore, as the previous speaker mentioned, it would be very difficult, to use a Northern Ireland expression, for the public to thole an increase in MLAs’ salaries at a time when there is such a need for both capital moneys and improved services for those whom we purport to serve.

Mr John Fee: I thank those Members who have participated in the debate. I shall be brief. I wish to reiterate that this initiative was not taken on the whim of the Assembly Commission. There is a statutory obligation under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to try to advance certain measures and supports for all Members. The Commission has tried to do that as diligently and transparently as possible. Therefore, it is somewhat disappointing that we are damned if we do and damned if we do not when it comes to Members’ salaries and other supports.
My Colleagues on the Commission and I have always defended the principle that Members should not, under any circumstances, be responsible for setting their own rates of pay, and we are not doing that. We defended, and it was agreed, that the recommendations of an independent body — the Senior Salaries Review Body — should be accepted. I said in the House that the recommendations should be accepted sight unseen. That is still the safest and best way forward.
This time around, the review body has made two recommendations. Recommendation 1 would have meant a substantial rise in Members’ salaries. However, recommendation 3 states that
"a review of the relevant salaries in the Northern Ireland Assembly should be undertaken."
Therefore, we are trying to interpret the SSRB, to be fair and to implement precisely what it is saying without prejudice about what the end salary of future MLAs might be. We are protecting the principle that those figures and supports should be determined in comparison with other public organisations, the Civil Service and other public servants.
I must point out the context of the package of proposals that will be discussed this afternoon. This is being done in the light of a pay and grading review for all Assembly Secretariat staff. One of today’s motions will restore the link between Members’ salaries and the Civil Service. It is being done in a context in which we shall not take a substantial pay rise. No Member or party asked for that, and I understand that no Member has any appetite to accept it. We are trying to consider the pay, grading and conditions of everybody who works within or for this organisation.
Members need the proper resources and information technology, and also properly qualified staff who are suitably paid to ensure that they can perform their role, represent their people, scrutinise legislation, et cetera. If the recommendations are accepted, the Commission will introduce guidance on issues such as rental for offices, terms and conditions, and the salary levels for our staff.
This is not an isolated issue; it is part and parcel of being a good employer. We are trying to be an employer of choice, and we are trying to ensure that the people who come to work in the Assembly have the resources that they need. It may be a dreadful flaw that we must return to the Chamber every year to debate the issue. By holding our breath and accepting a recommendation that we review everything connected with Members’ salaries, I hope that we can get a system in future that will not permit this unseemly occurrence. Nonetheless, it must be done.
The recommendations are properly thought out in the right context. A new mandate and new Members will arrive next year. Our responsibility now is to ensure that public representatives have the resources that they need to do the job.
If the Assembly accepts the recommendations, an MP’s salary will be £55,000, a Member of the Scottish Parliament’s salary will be £48,000, a Member of the National Assembly for Wales’s salary will be £41,500 and MLAs here will receive £41,321. I do not believe that we can be open to a charge of any great extravagance.
Finally, there is a recommendation for the Assembly Commission to consider central funding for the provision of disabled access to constituency offices. That would be difficult and could be enormously costly. The Commission wants the commitment from the Assembly that we implement that recommendation although I suspect that it will take some time to devise how it can be done properly.
I commend the motion to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly accepts recommendations 2 to 9 set out in the report by the Review Body on Senior Salaries, Report No.52, on the Review of Pay and Allowances and agrees that recommendation 1 should be reviewed at a later date.
Resolved:
That this Assembly agrees to amend the Northern Ireland Assembly (Members’ Salaries) Determination 2000 as follows –
In the Schedule, column (1), paragraph 1, after the words "Chairperson of any Statutory Committee" insert ", the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee of the Centre".
Resolved:
That this Assembly agrees to amend the Northern Ireland Assembly (Members’ Allowances) Determination 2000 as follows –
In the Schedule, paragraph 3(2) leave out "£35,756" and insert "£48,000". — [Rev Robert Coulter.]
Resolved:
That this Assembly approves the draft Statutory Rule "Allowances to Members of the Assembly (Winding Up Allowance) Amendment Order (Northern Ireland) 2002". — [Rev Robert Coulter.]

Determination on Members’ Salaries

Rev Robert Coulter: I beg to move
That this Assembly agrees to amend the Northern Ireland Assembly (Members’ Salaries) Determination 2000 as follows –
In paragraph 3(2) line 2 delete "nine".
This is a technical motion required as a result of changes to the Senior Civil Service pay bands. Under the Northern Ireland Assembly (Members’ Salaries) Determination 2000, the annual uprating of Members’ salaries is linked to the percentage by which the mid points of the nine Senior Civil Service pay bands below that of permanent secretary have increased compared to the previous year.
The Senior Civil Service pay bands changed from nine bands below that of permanent secretary to two, with effect from 1 April 2002. A technical change is therefore required to ensure that the provisions of paragraph 3(2) of the Determination can be applied.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I had notice that one person wished to speak; however, he is not in his place. I invite Rev Robert Coulter to make the winding-up speech.

Rev Robert Coulter: I wish to stress that this is a technical motion that is required as a result of changes in the Senior Civil Service pay bands: it is not a question of Members voting to give themselves a pay rise. There is provision for the annual uprating of Members’ salaries in the Salaries Determination. This motion seeks to amend the Determination to allow the provisions of paragraph 3(2) of the Determination to be applied. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly agrees to amend the Northern Ireland Assembly (Members’ Salaries) Determination 2000 as follows—
In paragraph 3(2) line 2 delete "nine".

Financial Assistance for Political Parties

Mrs Eileen Bell: I beg to move
That, as set out in section 2(4) of the Financial Assistance for Political Parties Act (Northern Ireland) 2000, this Assembly approves the revised scheme laid before the Assembly on 24 June 2002, for payments to political parties for the purpose of assisting Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly who are connected with such parties to perform their Assembly duties.
The revised scheme was laid before the Assembly on 24 June. The Commission recognises that that has given little time to Members and parties for detailed consideration of the proposals in the scheme. However, it is hoped that Members and parties will accept the scheme today as a genuine attempt by the Commission to provide proper financial assistance for political parties.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that financial assistance to opposition parties has been paid in the House of Commons since 1975. It is known as "Short money" after the then Leader of the House of Commons, the Rt Hon Edward Short. The purpose of the scheme is to assist opposition parties in the Commons to carry out their essential parliamentary duties. It is, however, important to point out, and particularly relevant in the context of the proposed revised scheme for the parties in the Assembly, that in addition to "Short money" in Westminster, the Government Whips’ Office has a budget of about £1 million a year. An additional scheme provides funding for costs incurred in the running of the office of the Leader of the Opposition.
The arrangements in Westminster were examined by its Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by Lord Neill of Bladen. In its fifth report of October 1998, the Neill Committee examined funding for political parties in the devolved institutions. In respect of the devolved institutions and the Assembly, the Committee said that it was
"aware that the procedures of the UK Parliament — within which Short money operates — may well not be directly appropriate to them, especially the Northern Ireland Assembly, which is designed to have an Executive Committee drawn from all the parties in the Assembly… We would on these grounds, support some form of funding to political parties within the Scottish Parliament and the two Assemblies for the purpose of the better performance of their parliamentary or assembly functions. It may be that the funding should be made available to all the parties, not just the minority parties."
In December 1999, when the Assembly debated the Second Stage of the Financial Assistance for Political Parties Bill, the only Member to speak was the mover of the motion, John Fee, who presented the Bill on behalf of the Commission. No issues were raised by Members at that Stage or at the Bill’s Consideration Stage on 25 January 2000. That could have been viewed as a tacit acceptance of the scheme and the financial assistance that it would provide. However, the Bill merely made provision for a scheme to be laid before the Assembly for approval. It did not include any detail or information about the provisions of the scheme.
The scheme, which is in operation, was made by the Secretary of State on 4 April 2000, as the Assembly was in suspension at the time. It provides for payment of up to £20,000 for each party and up to £2,000 for each seat in the Assembly held by a member of that party. Since then, there has been growing concern among Members and some parties about the level of financial assistance available under the current scheme. The proposals set out in the revised scheme provide for a payment of up to £24,000 for each party with one Member, £48,000 for each party with two or more Members and £3,000 for each Member connected with a political party who is under the direction of the party Whip and who does not hold a ministerial or junior ministerial post.
The core element of funding for a party with two Members or more has been set at £48,000 to provide funding for the payment of the necessary support staff and for costs associated with running an office, such as rental and IT support. That is based on the recommendations in the report of the SSRB as the amount required for office cost allowance for the employment of two members of staff and for office costs.
The current level of payment for each seat in the Assembly held by a Member has been increased from £2,000 to £3,000, and that is intended to reflect the contribution made by most Members to the work of the Assembly, including work in the Committees.
The report by the SSRB in relation to party allowances stated:
"In our view the current arrangements in the Northern Ireland Assembly may place some Parties at a disadvantage. Because the working arrangements in the Assembly are very different from those at Westminster and in the other devolved bodies, we see a case for the Assembly developing new arrangements which are appropriate to their particular circumstances."
The Commission has therefore proposed in the revised scheme that each party should receive some element of core funding, irrespective of whether they are represented in the Executive. In Westminster there is substantial funding for the Government Whips’ Office and the Office of the Leader of the Opposition. However, in recognition of the assistance that Ministers and junior Ministers receive from Special Advisers and their supporting teams of civil servants — including research staff — the Commission proposes that parties should not receive the payment of £3,000 for each Member in a ministerial or junior ministerial post.
The increased cost in this financial year will be £322,000. That is a rise from £416,000 to £738,000 and can be met from the existing budget for 2002-03.
The drawing up of the scheme was a difficult task and, on behalf of the Assembly Commission, I thank the Commission staff and the acting head of finance for their consistent help. I commend the motion and the revised scheme to the Assembly.

Mr Robert McCartney: The issue of increasing party costs goes to the heart of the nature of democratic practice in the Assembly. On more than one occasion I have referred to the fact that democracy in a real sense is not practised here. The fundamental principle of representative democracy in any modern Government is that the electorate may turn out a Government and replace it with another. That does not happen here. There is, in point of fact, no way — no matter how many elections we may hold — that the same people will not be returned in broadly the same numbers by broadly the same parties, who will nominate their members of the Government.
As a result, unlike Westminster, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, there is no true opposition in this Assembly. The four major parties, with seats representing more than 90 Members, form the Executive of Northern Ireland. They may suggest that they are the opposition — indeed, I have suggested previously that what we have here are 10independent political warlordships.
When the Minister of Health is under pressure, do her Colleagues in the Executive gather round, as one would expect in an ordinary democratic Government, to support her on the basis of some collective responsibility? Not a bit of it — they all weigh in. When the Minister of the Environment or the Minister for Regional Development is in a similar position, everyone acts as an Opposition in accordance with not the best interests of Northern Ireland, but the best interests of their party as they conceive them at that time. There is no Opposition, because all the major parties are in Government, and all the major parties, with the exception of Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party, have, apparently, through the agency of the Commission, endorsed the scheme.
Let us consider the original purpose of "Short money". As Leader of the House of Commons, Edward Short introduced the concept of "Short money" on 20March 1975. He had this to say as the conceptual basis for its payment:
"In these days it is becoming increasingly difficult for Opposition parties to keep up with those who are backed by the vast resources of Government, either in research or in administration. We believe that a healthy and lively Opposition is an essential part of democracy, and we feel that our proposals will go a little way towards redressing the balance between Government and Opposition. The position is becoming increasingly difficult because of the increasing complexity of the issues with which Parliament is faced, and, of course, it is partly due to rising prices."
What we have here is 10, nay 11, Departments all benefiting and being run by the four major parties — not by anybody else — who act as a Government. Where is the Opposition, when everyone except the minor parties is in power, when everyone except the minor parties is in Government, when everyone except the minor parties has the benefit of an enormous pyramid of skilled civil servants in their Departments to give advice and direction?
Not only does the Civil Service, with its benefits and experience, offer a continuum of Government, but we also have a modern accretion: Special Advisers. Each Minister has a Special Adviser, and four, if not six, are attached to the "Department of the Centre". They are on a salary of between £55,000 and £75,000. All the Special Advisers are available to the major parties in Government. Therefore, one asks why, given the principles on which "Short money" was established in the House of Commons, are we now going to deluge them not with the present £412,000 — of which they have the overwhelming portion — but with an added £312,000 or £314,000?
Most of the vast increase of more than £300,000 is going to parties that are not in opposition, and their receipt of that does not conform to the basic principles upon which Edward Short advanced the idea of "Short money". Those parties benefit from all the services that the Opposition in Westminster at that time was denied and that "Short money" was supposed to furnish. It has been suggested that the provision is being made because Northern Ireland is not the same as anywhere else, and of course it is not. However, even in Scotland the ordinary principles of a devolved democracy apply: a party with an overall majority or a party in coalition with others to form a majority runs the country in accordance with the accepted normal principles of democracy. That is not so here. We do not have democracy; we have a thing called democracy in that we are allowed elections, and now we have the travesty of the larger parties wanting it both ways. They want to be in Government under d’Hondt, which affords them the benefit of Ministries and the services of the Civil Service and its Special Advisers. However, lo and behold, when it comes to "Short money", they want, by waving some magical wand, to become the Opposition and so be entitled to the money that they claim ought to be theirs under the "Short money" principle.
The issuing of "Short money", the parties to which it is to be paid and the suggested increases show the fundamental principle that Westminster Governments have employed for years — corrupt political life in devolved Government with money, first through salaries and now through the parties with this additional money. It is for the House to decide whether it is right that, despite a vast shortage of money for hospitals, schools, housing, roads and water and sewerage systems, a substantial sum of more than £300,000 should be offered to political parties other than on the fundamental principles upon which the concept of "Short money" was based. It is for the Assembly to decide whether it will be advancing its image with the public, who will go short if the parties accept the benefit of "Short money".

Mr John Fee: I speak from my party Benches, because I am not contributing on behalf of the Assembly Commission, though I have some insight into its thinking. It is because of the dreadful flaws in the principles behind the "Short money" in Westminster that the Commission has produced a scheme that will not allow abuses that pertain in Westminster to be replicated here.
Consider all the money available to run the Government Whips’ Office, which is paid for by the Prime Minister’s office, and the £1 million-plus that allows the Government Whips’ Office to control Back-Benchers, dissenters, opposition, the business of the House, and so on. By comparison, in this Assembly, where we have a much higher level of scrutiny of legislation, we have Committees with policy development proposals, and we have Back-Bench Members who form, in many cases, the opposition to their Colleagues in the Government. We have rules that Special Advisers cannot give our political parties the type of support that is given in Britain or cannot put the brakes on them. We have such a different system. The Commission’s view is to ensure that every Member, in every aspect of his job, whether as a constituency representative, a legislator or a scrutineer on a Committee, has the type of support that Members at Westminster have.
I do not for one moment believe that Mr McCartney is suggesting that the Assembly should introduce or support a budget like that which exists to run the Government Whips’ Office in Britain, where full-time civil servants are involved in supporting the Government parties. The Commission wants to ensure that every Member and every political party — big or small — has the resources to enable them to do his or her job. That means asking what the core costs are. The core costs are those that are required to run an office, with secretaries and perhaps some research staff.
The Assembly has a wonderful research service, which ensures that every Member — if he or she wishes to dissent from what is happening — has the necessary resources. If Members need research to be carried out, they can have that service. The Commission has also been trying to ensure that nobody will be able to muzzle an individual Member — whether pro-agreement or anti-agreement, and whether he or she belongs to an Executive party, an opposition party, or none at all. We still have to resolve that last one.
Although Edward Short did a good job, the Government response in Britain was to put up a massive budget to enable them to run their own Whips’ Office. That would be wholly undemocratic in Northern Ireland. The Commission’s proposals are fair enough to allow every party and every Member to make his or her own judgement on how to represent constituents.

Mr Jim Wells: Some Members may not have had a chance to read the documentation on the changes to the office cost allowance (OCA) and party support levels. In its introduction it states:
"For the financial year commencing on 1 April 2002 and for future financial years financial assistance to political parties for the purpose of assisting members who are connected with such parties to perform their Assembly duties shall be payable by the Commission in accordance with Articles 2 to 5."
Article 2 states:
"Any claims for financial assistance shall be made to the Finance Officer under this Scheme in such form and manner as the Commission may require."
Crucially, it continues:
"As soon as practicable after 31st March in each year, but no later than 30th June that year, each political party shall furnish the Finance Officer with the certificate of an independent professional auditor to the effect that all financial assistance received by the party in each year ending 31st March under this Scheme was used exclusively for the authorised purpose."
Members may not be aware of just how strong the safeguards are in the necessary rule to ensure that this money is spent entirely on Assembly purposes. It is not to be spent for party political purposes or on external matters. It is to be spent to equip Members in political parties to scrutinise and monitor effectively the actions of the Departments. I want to emphasise that. The scheme is modelled on that of the National Assembly for Wales, which seems to have overcome many of the problems that were highlighted today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That, as set out in section 2(4) of the Financial Assistance for Political Parties Act (Northern Ireland) 2000, this Assembly approves the revised scheme laid before the Assembly on 24 June 2002, for payments to political parties for the purpose of assisting Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly who are connected with such parties to perform their Assembly duties.
Adjourned at 3.54 pm.